Election 2006

[palmspringsbum]

July 26, 2006

Sole Debate for Spitzer and Suozzi Is Fiery

The New York Times
By PATRICK HEALY

Slashing into each other with pointed and personal attacks during their sole televised debate, the two Democratic candidates for governor sparred last night over tax cuts, gay marriage, the death penalty, marijuana, the Queens blackout, and even their own future presidential ambitions.

The leading candidate, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, faced attack after attack for the full hour from his rival, Nassau County Executive Thomas R. Suozzi, whose own goal of raising his profile may have been helped by a series of memorable disclosures, like his desire to become president and the fact that he does not own an iPod.

Mr. Spitzer, whose political strength has stirred talk of a presidential candidacy in 2012, said that he did not want to be president, but that he did have an iPod.

Following a debate format that was meant to tease out differences, Mr. Spitzer said he believed that private schools were better than public schools and that he could enact universal health coverage as governor. He also pledged to introduce bills to legalize gay marriage and to put convicted terrorists and “cop killers” to death, and said he opposed legalizing marijuana for medical use. Mr. Suozzi disagreed on all of those points.

The debate, which was carried by NY1 and other cable stations statewide, was seen by political analysts as a make-or-break moment for Mr. Suozzi, who has been lagging far behind Mr. Spitzer in public opinion polls and fund-raising. Mr. Spitzer agreed to just this one debate, and it was held seven weeks before the Sept. 12 Democratic primary, at a time when many voters have yet to focus on the race.

Reflecting their tensions, the two men apparently even squared off before the debate. Mr. Suozzi, defying the debate rules, planned to bring a policy briefing book on stage with him. When Mr. Spitzer saw that, he became “very hostile,” Mr. Suozzi told reporters after the debate, “and just started getting angrier and angrier and angrier.”

Mr. Suozzi said that Mr. Spitzer threatened to back out of the debate and accused him of “playing games.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Spitzer, Christine Anderson, said Mr. Spitzer was “forceful, not angry,” and said he would participate only if Mr. Suozzi followed the rules.

During the debate, the two Democrats did concur on a few matters: They opposed a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq, confirmed that each had smoked marijuana before, and had no problem with allowing children to have cellphones in schools.

As for leadership styles, Mr. Spitzer came across at times like the polysyllabic prosecutor he is and like the charismatic leader he wants to become. There were moments when he spoke in legalisms, like describing the “role of recusal” in some lawsuits, and moments when he wore his heart on his sleeve, using words like “pain and agony” and “tragedy” to describe the suffering of people who had lost electricity in Queens.

Mr. Suozzi, who shares Mr. Spitzer’s alpha male personality and sometimes relies heavily on charm, tweaked Mr. Spitzer for speaking in “a lot of legalese and technicalities.”

Yet Mr. Suozzi did some parsing of his own. He said his opposition to gay marriage had “a lot to do with semantics,” explaining that he supported giving the same rights to gay couples that married couples have — yet, as a Catholic, he saw marriage as a sacrament for a man and a woman.

Mr. Spitzer said that answer was not acceptable. “Semantics is not what this is about — this is about equality,” he said.

While Mr. Suozzi did not run up the score against Mr. Spitzer or deliver any knockouts, he did make some progress toward a goal that has proved elusive: highlighting his differences with Mr. Spitzer and appearing as a credible choice in the Democratic primary.

“New York State government is dysfunctional — both parties are rotten to the core,” Mr. Suozzi said in his opening remarks. He said Mr. Spitzer, as attorney general since 1999, had focused on high-profile lawsuits against Wall Street firms instead of attacking corruption in government.

“He’s never really focused on government reform,” Mr. Suozzi said. “It’s government that’s hurting us.”

Mr. Spitzer, who mostly smiled his way through Mr. Suozzi’s salvos, charged that some of the attacks were “flat-out wrong,” and accused Mr. Suozzi of breaking his pledge to run a clean campaign.

“Every day there’s been another press release which has personal vitriol — 80 percent of them have nothing but venom directed toward me, toward my family,” Mr. Spitzer said. “You called me King George. You said standing up to me was like fighting tyranny. Last time I checked, Tom, we hadn’t taxed any of your tea.”

Mr. Spitzer’s strongest substantive attack on Mr. Suozzi came over taxes. He noted that as county executive, Mr. Suozzi had once raised property taxes sharply, and accused him of having multiple plans for higher levies.

The two men also clashed over Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s supportive words for the chairman of Consolidated Edison, Kevin M. Burke, who has been assailed by Queens residents for not being upfront about the scope of the power losses in the borough. Mr. Spitzer said that when he heard Mr. Bloomberg’s supportive comments, “I was stunned that he said it.”

Mr. Suozzi, meanwhile, said he was “in no position to second-guess Mayor Bloomberg,” and he used an Italian expression to cast doubt on Mr. Spitzer’s view that officials should look into the blackouts and act on recommendations for improvement.

“Watch the hands; don’t listen to the mouth,” Mr. Suozzi said.

Mr. Spitzer also found himself on the defensive over an ongoing lawsuit to increase state funds for New York City public schools.

First, Mr. Suozzi assailed Mr. Spitzer for litigating the case; Mr. Spitzer said he could not pick and choose cases based on his personal preferences. Later, in response to a question, Mr. Spitzer said he had identified $11 billion in government savings to put toward ending the lawsuit and cutting property taxes. At the same time, Mr. Spitzer said that no one — including himself — could provide a “specific” dollar amount that would go toward public schools.

That answer drew a skeptical retort from Mr. Suozzi and the debate panelist who asked the question, Brian Lehrer of WNYC radio. Mr. Spitzer, for the first time, said that he would spend $4 billion to $6 billion on schools, while Mr. Suozzi said he would spend $2.5 billion.

Aside from the political cut-and-thrust, last night also gave New Yorkers a taste of some of the political questions that will confront voters this fall: Would Mr. Spitzer be so beholden to party bosses and health care unions that he would balance their interests with his promises to overhaul Medicaid and expand charter schools?

Would New York’s political culture, after 12 years of Gov. George E. Pataki, benefit from a shake-up that a bomb-thrower like Mr. Suozzi might provide?

For now, Mr. Spitzer has plenty of reason to feel confident: A Siena College poll on Monday gave Mr. Spitzer a 69-point lead over Mr. Suozzi, and he has $16.3 million on hand compared to Mr. Suozzi’s $2.8 million. Mr. Faso has $1.4 million in the bank.

Conrad Mulcahy contributed reporting for this article.

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: Alabama: governor's race
<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: Jurisdiction | State | Alabama

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: Arizona

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: Arkansas

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: California

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: Colorado

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: Connecticut

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: New Mexico

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: New York Senate

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: politics | North Carolina

<span class=postbold>See Also</span>: politics | Vermont

[Midnight toker]

LifeSiteNews.com
Thursday August 3, 2006


US Activists Push for Marijuana Legalization On November Ballot

By Hilary White

DENVER, August 3, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Colorado and Nevada are preparing for statewide votes on legalizing "recreational" use of marijuana, with pot advocates lobbying heavily for the legalization of the possession of small amounts of the drug.

Both states are expecting ballot measures in the November elections that propose to legalize the use of one ounce or less of marijuana for those over 21.

The lobby group, Safer Alternatives for Enjoyable Recreation, argues that alcohol is more toxic and produces more dangerous behavior when abused. Instead of lobbying against alcohol use, the group, (SAFER), says that since use of marijuana is less harmful than abuse of alcohol, marijuana should be legalized. "Denver citizens are fed up with a system that punishes them for choosing to use a safer substance," the group’s website says.

Mary Ann Solberg, deputy director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, dismissed the argument saying, "It is not a benign drug, but a serious drug with consequences," she said. "To legalize something for recreational purposes that we have documented does health harm to people seems silly."

A significant body of research has shown, in confirmation of Solberg's opinion, that while marijuana use does not have most of the problems associated with abuse of alcohol, it carries its own nest of medical and psychological threats.

Last year, researchers in New Zealand found that marijuana use doubles the risk of developing serious mental illness like schizophrenia. In a study of 1000 users, the University of Otago researchers established that psychotic symptoms were more prevalent in cannabis users.

In 2004, Irish researchers found a link between cannabis use and male infertility, a medical condition that is becoming a plague in Britain.

[palmspringsbum]

<b>Opinion</b>

Can the state constitution keep judges impartial?

By Thomas D. Elias
August 11, 2006
The Ventura County Star


Once again, the specter of highly partisan campaigns for state and local judgeships hangs over California.

The last time this threat appeared was in the early 1980s when then-Gov. George Deukmejian made removal of most of the state Supreme Court a top priority shortly after his election in 1982. Deukmejian and other Republican activists used previously routine yes-or-no votes to get rid of then-Chief Justice Rose Bird and several other justices in 1984. Because voters ousted all but one judge Deukmejian targeted, he was able to shape the court's direction for at least the next 22 years.

That campaign followed by less than half a dozen years the drives in Los Angeles to oust lower court Judges Alfred Gitelson and Paul Egly over their rulings insisting on use of busing to integrate the city's public schools.

But since then, no California Supreme Court justice has been seriously challenged and lower court judges have only rarely faced so much as a challenger. When challenges do arise, they are usually over the way specific cases were handled, and not over partisan ideology.

But a narrow decision handed down earlier this year by the U.S. Supreme Court now threatens this generally pacific state of affairs. And if partisan change comes to the judiciary, only one group stands to benefit: political consultants who could make millions if judges begin running ordinary political campaigns.

Here's what the justices did in a case challenging a longstanding Minnesota law that forbade judges from speaking at political party meetings, seeking party endorsements or personally raising campaign funds: By a 5-4 margin, the high court without comment let stand an appeals court decision declaring the Minnesota law unconstitutional.

This may be one time when differences between the California Constitution and federal law work in the state's favor. For the state constitution makes judges nonpartisan officials. When they run for Superior Court offices, they can be opposed but the ballot never tells voters to which party they or their rivals belong.

Meanwhile, appellate judges and state Supreme Court justices must face up or down votes at the first election after their appointment and every 12 years after that. No opponents can file against them, although anyone who likes can run a campaign urging a no vote on any justice.

The nonpartisan nature of this structure still allows judges and their occasional challengers to raise all the money they like for campaigns, although very few gather much. What campaign contributions they get come mostly from lawyers — not surprising since all were attorneys before taking the bench and most retain their previous friendship circles.

But what if political parties began endorsing judicial candidates, as the U.S. Supreme Court now hints they can? Judges might then have to campaign on platforms, like ordinary politicians. They would have to take stands on abortion, gun control, the death penalty, sentencing practices and even issues like medical marijuana and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

Once they've done that, how fair a hearing could anyone expect when going into a courtroom? If a judge has already announced he's against abortion, and you are accused of assaulting an abortion doctor and then acquitted by that judge, how will you and the public feel about the fairness of that trial? If a judge is on record favoring medical marijuana, how fair a shot will prosecutors feel they have getting pot convictions in his courtroom? If a judge runs as a Democrat, how fair can he be when a Democratic public official is sued in his court?

Questions like this are the reason judges all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court level usually refuse to reveal their positions on controversial issues during confirmation proceedings. If they were on record favoring one side or another, they could either be viewed as totally biased when handling related cases or they could be forced to recuse themselves entirely.

And if recusals become everyday events, the court system could be frozen for lack of impartial jurists.

That's the Pandora's Box the U.S. Supreme Court threatens to open, and Californians can only hope their state constitution will protect them in the storm of campaigns that may soon come.

<hr class=postrule>
Thomas D. Elias, of Santa Monica, is a columnist and author. His e-mail address is tdelias@aol.com.

[palmspringsbum]

Marijuana: "Lowest Priority" Local Initiatives Make Ballot in Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Monica, and Missoula

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #441, June 23, 2006


It's official. Local initiatives that would make adult marijuana infractions the lowest law enforcement priority will be on the November ballot in three California cities -- Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Monica -- and the college town of Missoula, Montana. Missoula County officials certified that effort Thursday, and certifications of the California local elections came in over the summer.

Santa MonicaIn Missoula, Citizens for Responsible Crime Policy used a grant from the Marijuana Policy Project to collect more than 20,000 signatures in three months, far more than are needed to make the ballot. Organizers there hope to build on the statewide medical marijuana victory in 2004.

In California, organizers in Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Monica also succeeded in gathering sufficient signatures to make the ballot. The three California local initiatives contain almost identical language and describe themselves similarly. As the Santa Monica web site notes, the initiative "makes marijuana offenses, where cannabis is intended for adult personal use, the lowest police priority" and "it frees up police resources to focus on violent and serious crime, instead of arresting and jailing nonviolent cannabis users."

The Santa Cruz initiative goes one step further by establishing an official city position in favor of marijuana legalization. "Voters in Santa Cruz are tired of the failed and immoral federal war on drugs," said Andrea Tischler, chair of Santa Cruz Citizens for Sensible Marijuana Policy. "Let's move to a more reasonable marijuana policy, and make sure that our police and courts are not wasting their time and resources arresting and prosecuting nonviolent marijuana offenders. By passing this initiative, Santa Cruz can be a beacon of light showing the way to a more sensible policy that is compatible with the values of the majority of citizens."

Lowest priority initiatives have already passed in Seattle and Oakland, which was the model and inspiration for this year's local California initiatives, as well as a handful of college towns around the country.

[palmspringsbum]

FIRST LOOK 2008: LP SITUATION REPORT

Friday, September 01, 2006
The Free Market News Network


A few months ago, I started a series of articles on candidates for the Libertarian Party's 2008 presidential nomination, eventually posting some general thoughts, some asides, and profiles of Karen Kwiatkowski, Michael Badnarik and George Phillies.

I paused in that series because, as of that time, I wasn't seeing serious activity from other actual or prospective candidates. Now I'm involved with new party which may very well run a slate of its own, so it's only reasonable to assume that I'm writing this and future articles in the series from a decidedly different perspective.

Still, keeping up with what's going on in the LP is worthwhile, and I'd like to bring things up to date a bit:

- Candidates who had announced prior to the series hiatus, but whom I have not yet covered, include Lance Brown, Jim Burns, Dave Hollist and Robert Milnes (thanks to Politics1 for keeping a handy reference list). I may profile some or all of them in the future. Right now, the only one of these "other guys" who seems to be even remotely active is Milnes (see his recent interview at The Next Prez).

- Since my last article, at least four new candidates -- Gene Chapman, Steve Kubby, Christine Smith and Doug Stanhope have thrown their hats in the ring. Addtionally, the obviously libertarian Kent McManigal has announced his candidacy, but has not specified any particular party's nomination as his goal. [Note: I am not sure of the timeline on the Chapman and McManigal announcements -- I just know that I noticed them recently rather than earlier]

Some quick and dirty prognostication:

As I see it, the LP's nomination is, as of right now, Steve Kubby's to lose. I'm not saying that just because I like him (although I do, and although I supported him for the VP nomination in 2000). I'm saying it because he has some chops.

- Kubby is a capable campaigner with real political experience in helping put Proposition 215, California's "medical marijuana" law, over the top.

- He has a base of support in the party (and, unlike George Phillies, does not seem to have a base of firm opposition to match it).

- He has a base of support outside the party in the drug law reform movement. He announced his candidacy to a mob of 50,000 screaming Hempfest attendees. Most LP presidential candidates don't get near a mic in front of 50,000 people even after their nominations.

- He's successfully raised funds for various projects, and I have no doubt that his "past donor" Rolodex is, or shortly will be, smoking from use.

- His ongoing legal case has generated some name recognition for him, and that name recognition tends toward the positive, at least among people who won't dismiss marijuana advocates out of hand. The case is generally, and correctly, perceived as the railroading of a political threat, not the prosecution of a criminal.

I am not suggesting that Steve Kubby is the best possible nominee -- others may enter the race, and personally I think Kubby would be smarter to run for governor of California again in 2010 and president in 2012, as 2008 is going to be a foreign policy referendum, not a plebiscite on the drug war -- but he's starting his bid with formidable pre-existing advantages over his current opponents, and the LP could certainly do worse.

Let's talk about "worse" for a minute. I have nothing against Doug Stanhope. I think he's a funny guy. He has some name recognition as well. Unfortunately, that name recognition is generally associated with dick jokes and the direct marketing of videos featuring topless co-eds. I have nothing against dick jokes or topless co-eds, either, mind you ... but I'm having real trouble taking "Stanhope 2008" seriously (especially since the Politics1 link to his campaign web site leads to a search-engine-optimized link farm).

There's something to be said for "celebrity candidates," but let's think this over for a minute. Dennis Miller is a celebrity comedian. So is Al Franken. I don't see either one of them on the list of front-runners for their parties' presidential nominations. There's a reason for that. A comedian who has never been elected to prior public office running for the presidency of the United States is, and will be seen as ... a joke. For that matter, comedians like Sonny Bono and that guy from "Love Boat" made it to Congress, but were never considered serious presidential prospects.

And, while running a comedian for the presidency might increase the LP's vote total in 2008, that would be purely a matter of novelty value. Novelty value wears off quickly, and the LP has 2012 and after to think about. Doug Stanhope is the pet rock of LP presidential prospects. Even if his candidacy sold wildly in 2008, the party on whose ticket he ran would be stuck out in the garage with the round tuits and "Garfield" freaked-out-cat car window stick-ons four years later and for some time after that.

No, Steve Kubby is not as well-known as Doug Stanhope (who, by the way, isn't particularly well-known) ... but Kubby is probably more well-known than any past LP presidential nominee was at the time of his first nomination. And he's known for political activism, not for one-liners.

Of course, all bets are off if the evil one enters the arena. But right now, I'm betting on Kubby. At present, the only other candidate I'm seeing who deserves a shot at the nomination based on doing the work involved in an active campaign is George Phillies, and I'm unconvinced that that work will pay off for him.

[budman]

Pelosi Congress: Radicals Would Lead

Jim Meyers, NewsMax.com
Monday, Sept. 18, 2006

If Nancy Pelosi and her fellow Democrats win at the polls this November, it will give the party control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1994.

Under such a scenario, Pelosi would not only replace Dennis Hastert as the Speaker of the House, she would bring with her a new Democratic leadership – and many in this new leadership are quite radical in their politics.

NewsMax.com took a careful look at who among the Democratic caucus may hold the top positions in committees such as Ways and Means and Judiciary under a Pelosi Congress. The results were startling.

The Democrats need to pick up only 15 seats to gain a majority in the House. Of the 28 open seats – in districts where the incumbent is not seeking re-election – 18 are now held by Republicans.

The "Cook Political Report," a nonpartisan election analysis newsletter, lists 55 Republican and 20 Democratic seats as potentially "in play" – and all 17 "toss-up" seats are Republican.

A number of polls show strong public sentiment in favor of Democrats. Asked in a September CNN poll who should control Congress, 55 percent of respondents said Democrats – and only 43 percent picked the Republicans.

So there is a strong possibility that Democrats could pick up the 15 seats they need.

Under House rules, the majority party selects the chairman of each committee and subcommittee.

A Democratic takeover of the House "would usher in a cadre of the most liberal members to the most important committee chairmanships in the House," according to a report from the organization Washington Analysis. "These new chairmen would not only dictate the agenda, but would also lead the oversight onslaught that would be expected under a Democratic majority."

A Democratic majority would also enable the party to select the chairman of each subcommittee, creating further difficulties for the Bush administration. For instance, John Murtha of Pennsylvania, an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, is in line to become chairman of the Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee.

Democrats traditionally go strictly by seniority when selecting a committee chairperson, while Republican Party rules allow them to be more flexible.

If Democrats remain true to form, here's what Pelosi's Congress will look like, according to Washington Analysis and other sources – along with each Democrat's "liberal quotient," the Americans for Democratic Action's rating based on lawmakers' support for the liberal position in key votes:


Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House (95 percent liberal quotient).
Pelosi represents a district including most of San Francisco – a seat that has been in Democratic hands since 1949 – and is one of the most liberal members of the House. She voted against all of the following issues: cutting taxes by $70 million, renewing the Patriot Act, reducing the death tax, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and making it a crime to desecrate the U.S. flag. She supports gay marriage, and backed legislation allowing overseas military facilities to provide abortions for women in the military and military dependents.

The would-be Speaker also backed a measure calling for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, supported a bill requiring a 72-hour background check for persons buying weapons at gun shows – and opposed a bill strengthening the enforcement of immigration laws.


Steny Hoyer, Majority Leader (95 percent).
He is currently the minority whip and has represented a Maryland district south of Washington, D.C., since 1981. His recent voting record on key issues is virtually identical to Pelosi's. Hoyer was chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the fourth-ranking position among House Democrats, from 1989 to 1994.

He has admitted to being a "tax-tax, spend-spend" Democrat, and The Washington Post said Hoyer is "among the House's 10 most prodigious suppliers of pork."


Rahm Emanuel, Majority Whip (100 percent).
The representative from the north side of Chicago would take the powerful position once held by Tom DeLay. Emanuel is the co-author of "The Plan: Big Ideas for America" – the Democrats' attempt at echoing the GOP's "Contract with America" that helped them gain control of the House in 1994. Emanuel was director of finance for Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign and a top aide to Bill and Hillary from 1993 to 1998. He is currently the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and is known as one of Congress' most combative Democrats in the House. Pundit Ann Coulter has called him "the Democrats' pit bull."


Charles Rangel, Ways and Means Committee (100 percent).
Rangel would become chairman of the most powerful committee in the House, with jurisdiction over taxes, trade, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Rangel has voted against the Bush tax cuts and opposes the estate tax repeal. He'd likely back a windfall profits tax on oil companies, and has also called for the renewal of the military draft. Rangel has been arrested three times for taking part in protests, and has compared President Bush to Bull Connor, the police official in Birmingham, Ala., who led attacks on civil rights protesters in the 1960s.


Barney Frank, Financial Services (100 percent).
The congressman from Massachusetts is a staunch liberal who would surely not be as favorable to the banking or financial services community as the current chairman, Michael Oxley of Ohio. He would also support more consumer protection and regulation of credit rating agencies, and he opposes a ban on Internet gambling. Frank, who is openly gay, is the founder of the National Stonewall Democrats, the national gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Democratic organization.


John Conyers, Judiciary (95 percent).
Conyers, who represents a Detroit-area district, is one of the most outspoken liberals in Congress, and is the prime sponsor of a resolution seeking to investigate whether President Bush has committed impeachable offenses regarding Iraq. He frequently posts to the liberal blog Daily Kos, and appeared in Michael Moore's movie "Fahrenheit 9/11," saying that most members of Congress "don't read most of the bills."


Henry Waxman, Government Reform (100 percent).
One of the most influential liberal members of Congress, Waxman represents a district that includes Beverly Hills, Malibu, Santa Monica and West Hollywood. According to his Web site, universal health insurance, reproductive rights, AIDS, and environmental standards are among his top priorities. In 2004, Waxman was sharply critical of federally funded abstinence education programs.


John Dingell, Energy and Commerce (95 percent).
Dingell, the longest serving House member, would take over the committee. The representative from a district south of Detroit is a strong supporter of national health care, organized labor and social welfare programs, and is known for his tough oversight of businesses. But he has voted against clean air bills that could negatively impact the auto industry.

Ike Skelton, Armed Services (75 percent).
Skelton of Missouri, a 15-term congressman, has fought defense cuts and is mostly hawkish on defense matters. But he recently urged President Bush to begin planning for a withdrawal from Iraq if sectarian violence escalates.


David Obey, Appropriations (100 percent).
Unlike Skelton, Obey – with oversight of the defense budget – would probably seek to cut into some major defense programs and spend more on domestic programs. Obey, who has been in Congress since 1969, has called for much higher Congressional oversight of administration spending.


George Miller, Education and Workforce (100 percent).
A close ally of Pelosi, Miller would propose cutting interest rates for student loans and increasing fees on banks and other financial institutions in the student lending business, according to Washington Analysis. The representative from California's Bay area pushed for an investigation of the Bush administration's hiring of Armstrong Williams to promote the No Child Left Behind law.


Bennie Thomson, Homeland Security (95 percent).
Thompson of Mississippi would become one of three African-Americans to chair a major committee. He's a soft-spoken but tough congressmen who has been diligent in attending to homeland securities issues. After Hurricane Katrina devastated parts of the Gulf Coast, he called for a careful review of Red Cross activities in times of disasters.


Tom Lantos, International Relations (95 percent).
Lantos represents part of San Francisco and areas to the South. He is the only Holocaust survivor in Congress and a staunch supporter of Israel. Lantos supports gun control, gay marriage rights, and marijuana for medical use. In April 2006, he was arrested for disorderly conduct in front of the Sudanese embassy in Washington for protesting alleged ethnic cleansing in Darfur.


Louise Slaughter, Rules (95 percent).
The representative from Western New York is the chair of the Bipartisan Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus and another frequent poster to Daily Kos, and would use her position to further the program of the Democratic leadership.


Jim Oberstar, Transportation and Infrastructure (90 percent).
Oberstar of Minnesota, a 16-term veteran of Congress, is thought to be the most knowledgeable elected official in Washington – on either side of the aisle – on transportation issues. He has a liberal voting record, but opposes abortion and gun control.


John Spratt, Budget (90 percent).
The congressman from South Carolina currently serves as assistant to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. He is known as a moderate Southerner who opposes deficit spending.


Jane Harman or Alcee Hastings, Intelligence.
It's unclear who would gain the sensitive position of chairman of the Intelligence Committee. Democratic leaders might bypass Jane Harman of California, the ranking member, in the belief that she has been too accommodating to President Bush, and give the chairman position to Alcee Hastings of Florida. That move would be sure to draw GOP fire, since as a federal judge Hastings was impeached and convicted 18 years ago on charges of extortion, perjury and falsifying documents.

Other Democrats in line for the chairman position include Colin Peterson of Minnesota, Agriculture (65 percent).


Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Resources (90 percent).


Bart Gordon of Tennessee, Science (90 percent).


Nydia Velazquez of New York, Small Business (100 percent).

[Midnight toker]

Eureka Springs : Group gets ‘pot’ proposal on ballot

BY TRACIE DUNGAN

Posted on Wednesday, September 20, 2006

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

A Fayetteville pro-marijuana group has collected enough signatures for a November ballot initiative seeking to make marijuana arrests in Eureka Springs a low law enforcement priority.

Fayetteville NORML collected the required number of signatures to put the question to Eureka Springs voters during the Nov. 7 general election, said Ryan Denham, the group’s president.

The Carroll County Election Commission approved the ballot measure Monday, election coordinator Cathy Ellis said.

The initiative seeks to make arrests and prosecution of misdemeanor marijuana possession of 1 ounce or less a low priority, Denham said.

“We believe this is going to free up other police resources to deal with more serious crimes,” he said.

Eureka Springs Police Chief Earl Hyatt said the effort contradicts Arkansas law’s requirements for marijuana possession, a Class A misdemeanor.

With such misdemeanors, the arresting officer has a choice of making an arrest or releasing the person on a citation to appear in court, he said. State law requires the suspect be fingerprinted before being locked up or released.

“Whether it passes or not, if it’s in contradiction with state or federal law, it doesn’t count,” Hyatt said.

Last week, Eureka Springs City Clerk Mary Jean Sell verified the petition contained 156 valid signatures — a dozen more than were needed, Ellis said.

Ellis and Denham said the target number was based on 15 percent of the votes in the last mayoral race.

Fayetteville NORML — part of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws — seeks to decriminalize marijuana and to promote use of medical marijuana.

“It’s either lowering the fines or making it a nonarrestable offense — like a traffic citation,” Denham said.

The local group began two petition drives in Fayetteville from April to June, one to make possession of misdemeanor amounts of marijuana that city’s “lowest law enforcement priority” and the other to allow doctors to recommend medical marijuana, Denham said.

The group aborted both petitions after realizing it was running out of help and time to gather the needed signatures, he said.

Even on the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville campus, registered voters who could provide a valid petition signature were hard to come by.

“It’s pretty disappointing,” Denham said. “We did voter registration drives for about a year on campus in preparation for these petition drives.”

The local NORML group then decided to focus on nearby Eureka Springs. Its initiative is patterned after decriminalization efforts in 11 other states and in cities such as Columbia, Mo., and Ann Arbor, Mich., he said.

[palmspringsbum]

<span class=postbold>Drug War Chronicle - world’s leading drug policy newsletter</span>

Feature: Prominent Drug Reformers Run for Statewide Office in Connecticut, Maryland

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #458, 10/20/06

Two of the country's most well-known drug reformers are on the November ballot, and while, barring a miracle, they have no chance of winning, both are taking the drug reform message to new audiences and, hopefully, gaining new support for undoing drug prohibition. In Connecticut, Cliff Thornton, head of the reform group Efficacy is running as the Green Party nominee for governor. In Maryland, Kevin Zeese, of NORML and early Drug Policy Foundation (forerunner of the Drug Policy Alliance) fame and president of Common Sense for Drug Policy is running for US Senate as a "unity" candidate as the nominee of the Green, Libertarian, and Populist parties. (In Alabama, drug reform activist Loretta Nall won the Libertarian Party nomination for governor, but having failed to overcome the state's onerous third party ballot qualification requirements, has been reduced to doing a write-in campaign.)

<table class=posttable align=left width=300><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg width=300 src=bin/thornton_cliff.jpg></td></tr><tr><td class=postcap align=center>Cliff Thornton on the campaign trail</tr></td></table>In Connecticut, Thornton is up against Democratic challenger John DeStefano and the incumbent, Republican Gov. Jodi Rell, who, according to most recent polls, is cruising to victory with a margin of greater than 20 percentage points. Although Thornton has not been included in the polls and has been squeezed out of Wednesday night televised debate -- he did manage to get a campaign ad placed right before the debate -- he told Drug War Chronicle his campaign has been opening new space for drug reform in Connecticut.

"You know we're having an impact," he said. "There have been about 175 shootings and killings here in the last three months, and I talk about why. That's the main reason Rell and DeStefano don't want me in the debates -- they don't want to defend a failed drug policy."

They may not want to talk drug policy, but for Thornton it is the centerpiece of his campaign. "I don't always lead with the drug issues, but everyone wants to know about the drug issue. Everybody gets it," said Thornton. "Rell and DeStefano are shying away from the whole issue, although sometimes their staff members will talk about it."

Thornton's year of work in the trenches of drug policy reform in Connecticut and nationwide have made him a known quantity in local political and media circles, and this year's gubernatorial run has provided plenty of fodder for articles on Thornton and the drug issue. The issue is now gaining an even higher profile in Connecticut thanks to Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, which is currently engaged in a statewide speaking tour. While LEAP doesn't campaign for candidates, the timing of Thornton's campaign is adding fire to their Connecticut efforts. The group has already had some 70 speaking engagements or media interviews during this current blitz, with more scheduled.

"It is difficult to measure LEAP's impact," said Thornton, "but it is very powerful."

With only weeks left in the campaign, Thornton is going full-bore. "We have a helluva schedule between now and election day," he said. "They don't want us in the debates, they don't want us in the polls, but they can't keep our message from getting out, and in that sense, we've already won."

While in Connecticut, a vote for Thornton instead of Rell or DeStefano is unlikely to have any impact on Rell's presumptive victory, it's a different story in the Maryland US Senate race. In that open seat, Democrat Ben Cardin is locked in a tight race with Republican Michael Steele. According to most recent polls, Cardin has a slight lead, but at least one poll shows a dead heat, with each candidate getting 46% of the vote and Zeese getting 3%. In Maryland, the Zeese campaign could be a real spoiler, or as Zeese prefers to put it, "competition."

Zeese has already had some noticeable achievements. He has managed to forge an outsider alliance with his Green-Libertarian-Populist candidacy and he has become the first third-party candidate in Maryland to win a seat in Senate debates. Since he lacks the campaign funds to mount a full-scale media campaign, the debates will be critical to the Zeese campaign's success.

"I've broken through to get in the debates -- there may be as many as six of them -- and that's key for the whole campaign. We have to be heard and seen, and this will help make the media acknowledge my candidacy," Zeese told the Chronicle. "I think my poll numbers will go up significantly once the debates start because then people will hear my message."

He is having a hard time getting heard now. "The Zeese campaign is invisible," said University of Maryland government professor Paul Hernson. "He hasn't gotten much coverage."

Still, said Hernson, with the race as tight as it is, Zeese could have an impact. "If this race ends up very close, it is possible a minor party candidate like Zeese can play the role of spoiler," he told the Chronicle.

Zeese may benefit from the tangled racial politics of this race. The Democrat, Cardin, is white and trying to appeal to his black Democratic base, which is still stung by Cardin's victory over Kweisi Mfume in the primaries, while the Republican, Steele, is black and trying to appeal to white conservatives as well as picking up some black Democratic voters.

Zeese is taking advantage of the drug policy issue where he can. "At the Urban League debate, in my introduction I talked about the need for treatment, not incarceration, and I talked about the prison population," he related. "When someone asked about whether African-Americans should support Democrats, I talked about Maryland being the most racially unfair state in the nation, with 90% of those incarcerated for drug offenses being black. That's what you get for electing Democrats, I told them."

With Steele closing in on Cardin, Zeese could make the difference. The only question is who he is more likely to pull votes from, and that is by no means clear.

Two other prominent drug reformers not running for office, Drug Policy Alliance executive director Ethan Nadelmann and Criminal Justice Policy Foundation executive director Eric Sterling, told the Chronicle they generally welcomed such third-party campaigns by drug reformers, although Nadelmann worried about the impact they could have on the Democratic Party.

"Historically, third parties play a critical role in legitimizing controversial subjects for national political action," said Sterling, who was quick to note he had contributed to both the Zeese and Thornton campaigns. "The Republican Party was a third party when it formed and organized around the issue of the abolition of slavery. Third parties in the 1920s and 1930s advanced labor management issues that were enacted in the 1930s and 1940s that we now completely take for granted as part of the American way of life, such as paid vacations and the five day work week. The idea that there are only two political parties is unique to the United States and doesn't exist in the Constitution," he pointed out.

"In Connecticut, the problems of prohibition, crime, and drug abuse have been major problems in the three major cities," Sterling said, pointing to revolving police chiefs in Hartford, the cocaine-using current mayor in Bridgeport, and historically high drug prohibition-related crime levels in New Haven. "Given this background, Cliff Thornton's candidacy, his unique personal biography and his uncommon ability to speak powerfully and effectively to many audiences has enabled him to speak about the drug issue in Connecticut and caused many people to think about the nature of our drug problem, our means of approaching it, and the consequences of approaching it that way."

In Maryland, said Sterling, it is a three-way race and Zeese deserves support whether it hurts the Democratic candidate or not. "If you accept that there is a legitimate role for third parties in our democratic process, then it can't be the case that it's only when it makes no difference," he argued. "If Ben Cardin is unable to mobilize his allies in the African-American community, that is his fault, not Kevin Zeese's."

Such campaigns are "unquestionably worth it," said Sterling. "Those of us who read the Drug War Chronicle understand that the struggle to change the world's drug laws is a long-term struggle and to make our ideas the conventional wisdom requires that they be articulated in the conventional forums of policy debate, such as election campaigns. In Connecticut, the Thornton campaign has done more than any single thing to legitimize the debate about drug policy, and that is unquestionably a good thing."

The Drug Policy Alliance's Nadelmann largely concurred, but he raised concerns about possible negative consequences. "If you're talking about a race for governor, the question is how are the other candidates on this issue and is this helping the likely winner to arrive at a better drug policy position or not," he said. "In Connecticut, Thornton is playing a constructive role talking about drug policy and is unlikely to have an impact on who wins. But will Gov. Rell hold that against us when we need her to sign a medical marijuana bill or a bill on drug free zones?"

It's a slightly different equation for legislative office, Nadelmann argued, especially this year. "It is clear that drug policy reform will fare better under a Democratic House and Senate than a Republican one. In Maryland, Kevin Zeese has broken new ground with his coalition, and that's a good thing. What you don't want to see happen is to have votes for Kevin end up throwing the election to the candidate and the party that is worse on drug policy."

[palmspringsbum]

Drug War Chronicle - world’s leading drug policy newsletter

Feature: Lowest Law Enforcement Priority Marijuana Initiatives Face the Voters in Five Cities

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #459, 10/27/06

Inspired by successful local initiatives making marijuana the "lowest law enforcement priority" in Seattle and Oakland, activists in three California cities -- Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Monica -- are busy working to ensure that similar measures pass there in November. Similar measures are also on the ballot in Missoula, Montana, and Eureka Springs, Arkansas.

"Lowest priority initiatives are relatively cost efficient and for the most part productive," said Paul Armentano, senior policy analyst for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), some of whose local affiliates are involved in the Arkansas effort. "They are a way to tap into the sentiments of local voters, and we have certainly seen the success of similar initiatives, especially in Seattle, where their law has some teeth and has yielded a drastic reduction in local arrests. These are not necessarily just symbolic, and they put law enforcement priorities more in line with what the taxpayers prefer," he told the Chronicle.

Such initiatives typically include language like the following from the web site of Santa Monicans for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which notes that the initiative there "makes marijuana offenses, where cannabis is intended for adult personal use, the lowest police priority" and "it frees up police resources to focus on violent and serious crime, instead of arresting and jailing nonviolent cannabis users."

In at least one California community, however, the initiative language is a bit stronger. In Santa Cruz, in addition to making marijuana offenses the lowest law enforcement priority, the initiative sponsored by Sensible Santa Cruz would "establish a city policy supporting changes in state and federal laws that call for taxation and regulation for adult use of marijuana."

The Missoula initiative is a bit weaker. While it contains the standard lowest law enforcement priority language and calls for the creation of an oversight committee, it only recommends -- not mandates -- such a prioritization.

The Eureka Springs initiative (not available on the web) would modify the town's city ordinances to read: "When any law enforcement officer suspects any adult of possession of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana and/or possession of marijuana paraphernalia, that person shall not be required to post bond, suffer arrest, suffer incarceration, suffer prosecution, be taken into custody for any purpose nor detained for any reason other than the issuance of a citation. There shall be a strong presumption that the proper disposition of any such case is to suspend the imposition of sentence and/or require community service work and/or drug counseling and education." The ballot language continues by pointing out that: "The message of this ordinance is that people should not use marijuana, but should also not lose opportunities for education and employment because of such use. The limited resources of law enforcement should be directed primarily toward crimes of violence or property loss. The enforcement of laws against marijuana shall be the lowest law enforcement priority."

With the November elections now just a matter of days away, Drug War Chronicle decided to check in win initiative organizers to see how things are shaping up. In California, long-time drug reform activist Mikki Norris, a veteran of the successful Measure Z lowest priority campaign in Oakland in 2004, a member of the California Cities Campaign and an advisor to local organizers this year, told the Chronicle the Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Monica initiatives were all in good shape, but that Santa Monica was shaping up as the most difficult challenge.

"We are getting more and more endorsements in all three cities and we've got the Democratic Party clubs in all three cities, and that's important," said Norris. "It's going to really depend on turnout on Election Day, and we still haven't seen what the opposition will do in terms of things like last-minutes mailers."

Santa Monica's changing demographics and complicated local political environment are posing a challenge to success there, said Norris. "Santa Monica has been changing in recent years, and there is now a complex politics there with the luxury hotel lobby very influential and police department that is well-regarded and strongly opposed to the initiative," she said. "Santa Monica is going to be the toughest to win," she predicted.

"We have the most contentious of the three campaigns," agreed Nickie LaRosa, who is heading up the campaign in Santa Monica. "Santa Monica is no longer super-progressive, and people are inclined to look to community leaders and the police for direction. While we have some community leaders with us, we don't have any local elected officials on our side, and the police association is against us," she told the Chronicle.

Still, LaRosa said she was "optimistic" about the initiative's chances. "We're working to do something that will have a very positive effect on the city, and we have a strong grassroots effort. We'll be doing direct mailings when it gets close to Election Day, but for many people, this issue isn't even on the radar yet. We've been laying low -- trying not to create a platform for the police to attack us. We're flying under the radar and trusting that the direct mail campaign will motivate voters who want to see a better city with fewer unsolved crimes."

Things are a bit more relaxed in Santa Cruz, where there is no organized opposition to the local initiative, said campaign coordinator Kate Horner. "We have the support of several council members and county supervisors, and we're doing quite well in terms of community support," she said. "We are very confident the voters will turn out and support this; I think it's just a question of by how much."

Victories in all three cities will send a strong message across the state, said Norris. "That will set us up in a position to go to the state legislature and say that cities across the state are voting to decriminalize and it's time to look at reducing penalties," she said. "Possession is still a misdemeanor here, and we could bring it down to an infraction. Victories in these cities should also encourage elected representatives from those areas to vote for marijuana law reform. It is time to try an alternative to current policy, and winning in November only strengthens our hand," she said.

Meanwhile, up in Montana, Missoula initiative organizers are gearing up for a final push to victory in the face of opposition from local law enforcement and youth substance abuse prevention groups. "We're dealing with the Reefer Madness mentality," said campaign spokesperson Angela Goodhope. "The cops and the substance abuse people make these outrageous claims that everybody is going to start smoking pot, but they don't have any evidence to back them up. We know that liberalizing drug laws in other places has not led to an increase in drug use."

Although initiative backers can easily rebut such claims, it is difficult to match the media access available to police, said Goodhope. "It's tough to combat them if the media just prints this stuff uncritically," she said. "They are also claiming -- falsely -- that if the initiative passes, they will lose federal funding."

But while there is organized opposition in Missoula, it is also the Montana county most likely to be friendly to a lowest priority initiative. Home to the University of Montana, the city has a reputation in the Big Sky state as a mecca of free-thinkers. According to Goodhope, activists across the state met last year after the successful statewide medical marijuana vote, analyzed the results, and found the strongest support in Missoula County.

But Goodhope is nervous as the days tick down. "I stay awake at night thinking about what we can do, what new tactic we can use, what it's going to take for us to win this," she said.

And down in Arkansas, activists affiliated with local NORML chapters have focused on the eccentric small town of Eureka Springs, another bastion of free-thinkers in a conservative state. "Eureka Springs is a special place," said Kelly Maddy of Joplin NORML just across the state line in Missouri. "We originally were aiming at Fayetteville, but when we saw we were coming up short, Eureka Springs was the natural fallback," he said.

Again, law enforcement is proving the biggest obstacle, with local police in Eureka Springs saying they will not enforce the local ordinance if it passes, but will continue to arrest people under state law. "They may not want to enforce the lowest priority law, but if it passes, it will be clear signal to police what the voters want," he said.

In about 10 days, we shall see how the political landscape has shifted and whether we will have five more communities that have essentially rejected marijuana prohibition.

<hr class=postrule>reply | email this page
<span class=postbold>Correction - Eureka Springs AR</span>
Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 10/27/2006 - 2:52pm
<b>Wrong wording on Eureka Springs Initiative</b>

(B) When any law enforcement officer suspects any adult of possession of a misdemeanor amount of marijuana and/or possession of marijuana paraphernalia, that person shall not be required to post bond, suffer arrest, suffer incarceration, suffer prosecution, be taken into custody for any purpose nor detained for any reason other than the issuance of a citation. There shall be a strong presumption that the proper disposition of any such case is to suspend the imposition of sentence and/or require community service work and/or drug counseling and education.

(E) The message of this ordinance is that people should not use marijuana, but should also not lose opportunities for education and employment because of such use. The limited resources of law enforcement should be directed primarily toward crimes of violence or property loss. The enforcement of laws against marijuana shall be the lowest law enforcement priority.

[palmspringsbum]

October 31, 2006


In New York, no candidate opposes 'reform,' but ...

The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle

Mark Hare

After decades of dour reminders that voting is everyone's civic obligation, I find AARP's "Don't vote ..." campaign refreshing, if not exactly what it seems.

"Don't vote" is the come on, of course. After the ellipsis follow the words, "until you know where the candidates stand on the issues." Obviously that's good advice, but not so easy to follow. Visit www.dontvote.com and you'll find links to the Web sites of every major party congressional candidate in the country. You'll also find links to candidates running in other key races around the states.

(Do not confuse the AARP site with www.dontvote.org, which offers a test — you are asked to identify 30 photos of famous people and if you get an F, you are told not to vote and to move to France.)

While it's not smart to vote for candidates without knowing where they stand, when you read what the candidates say, you don't necessarily know what they'll do.

In New York, as always, the big issue is "reform." No one can oppose reform, but as even a casual observer knows, our Legislature has been gerrymandered to protect the Assembly and Senate majorities (Democrat and Republican, respectively) indefinitely. It is not an easy sell to get legislators to support reforms that might create fair elections and cost them their jobs.

This year's D and R gubernatorial candidates, Eliot Spitzer (http://www.spitzerpaterson.com) and John Faso (http://www.johnfaso2006.com) promise big changes.

Spitzer would make elections fairer with campaign finance reforms and a ban on lobbyist gift-giving. Faso says he'd veto redistricting plans that favor incumbents, supports eight-year term limits for statewide officials and legislative leaders and opposes secret pork barrel projects.

Sounds good to me. But we've all heard this before.

I hope the next governor can make reform happen, but pardon my doubts. The candidates are great at the whats of reform, but not so clear on the how-tos.

This is why I am oddly drawn to the plain-spoken candidates who have no chance whatsoever. Consider Malachy McCourt, the 75-year-old candidate of the Green Party, former longshoreman and saloon keeper, writer and brother of Angela's Ashes author Frank McCourt.

He's not going to win and doesn't really want to be governor. That makes speaking out risk free, but nonetheless, appealing. Here's a sample of McCourt's ideas:

He'd convert the New York National Guard to an environmental corps. He'd give public school teachers big raises and guarantee every child free tuition at state colleges. (He'd ease up on standardized testing, too. "It is test enough just to be born," he says).

Property taxes for seniors of modest means would be based on the original sale price of their home. He'd raise the tax on cigarettes so that one smoke would cost the same as a gallon of gasoline. He'd require schools to serve organic food, support a permanent ban on the death penalty and legalize medical use of marijuana.

His campaign slogan: "Don't waste your vote; give it to me."

I'm not endorsing McCourt's views, just the beauty of plain speaking. It's refreshing to read a statement and know exactly the candidate's intention.

So yeah, I agree with AARP. Don't vote until you know where the candidates stand. But in New York, it's not enough to know where the candidates stand.

You have to know whether they can make the forces of anti-reform back down. That's the hard part.

[palmspringsbum]

Voter Guides Proliferate With Interest-Group Politics

BY CHUCK McCUTCHEON
c.2006 Newhouse News Service
October 31, 2006



WASHINGTON -- It's generally easy to learn where political candidates stand on Iraq or the budget deficit. But what if you want their views or voting records on organic farming, mountain biking or marijuana laws?

Enter the specialized voter guide, produced by interest groups large and small.

Inspired by the Christian Coalition's influential guides focusing on issues of interest to social conservatives, these publications aim to pin down answers to questions that don't always get asked along the campaign trail.

Unlike the candidate background materials put out by the League of Women Voters and many daily newspapers, such Web-based guides seldom strive for balance.

"They're attempting to provide information that will make it very clear what the organization supports," said Steven Clift, founder and board chairman of E-Democracy.org, a nonpartisan project based in Minneapolis and devoted to the interaction between the Internet and democracy.

As a result, Clift joked, "Voters need a guide to voter guides."

The lobbying arm of the Organic Consumers Association (http://organicconsumersfund.org), which focuses on organic and sustainable food and farming, recently put out its first voter guide. It asked candidates in federal and state races across the country whether organics deserve a "fair share" -- at least 2.5 percent -- of all government spending on agriculture, as well as whether elected officials should more aggressively assess harm from pesticides.

Ronnie Cummins, director of the Finland, Minn., association, said the guide arose because many lawmakers "are woefully ignorant" of organic consumers. He said he hopes it eventually can offer a comprehensive look at politicians' views.

"We knew this first time around, we were mainly going to get a response from third-party candidates and incumbents with safe seats, because they're taking a risk to expose themselves, taking a stand on such a broad range of issues," Cummins said.

Members of Mid-Atlantic Off-Road Enthusiasts (http://www.more-mtb.org), a group of more than 500 mountain bikers in the Washington, D.C., area, decided to poll Maryland state and county lawmakers after doing a similar survey in Virginia last year.

Candidates were asked whether the state provides enough mountain bike access, whether more money should be spent to expand and maintain trails and even whether they'd be interested in coming for a ride with the group.

"Our members need to be politically active because mountain biking often involves public lands issues," said association spokesman Mark Wigfield of Washington. "This is a way to build a relationship with lawmakers."

The association received 39 responses from candidates in 22 races. Among them was Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, who touted his success in getting money for more trails and said he'd gladly take a ride with the group "after my re-election."

The Olympia, Wash.-based Washington Restaurant Association (http://www.wrahome.com) also is using its guide to foster warmer relations with state lawmakers. Although the guide doesn't endorse candidates, it bestows a "Hero" or "Special Thanks" designation on several in addition to providing their votes on 13 bills seen as important to the food and beverage industry.

"We singled them out because a voting record alone isn't enough to know how hard they work for us," said Trent House, the association's director of government affairs.

Vancouver, British Columbia, marijuana activist Marc Emery was not so generous in his voter guide assessing all 435 U.S. House members (http://www.myspace.com/myspace_Vote2006_Army). He assigned failing grades to 265, with only 94 receiving a B-plus or better on issues such as medical marijuana, the Iraq war and renewing the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law.

Emery has a personal interest in the U.S. political climate. He was indicted in July 2005 in Seattle on charges of conspiring to manufacture marijuana, launder money and traffic millions of marijuana seeds into the United States. He has been fighting extradition to the U.S.

Emery said he hopes his guide inspires U.S. readers to become more politically active.

"The more you invest in the process, the more you'll pay attention," he said. "All the people who are copying and who received this guide, they're going to watch to see what the (election) results are."

Not every guide compiler takes the job so seriously.

In 2004, New York City oenophile and blogger Tyler Colman (http://www.drvino.com) put out a humorous guide to the presidential election for wine lovers. Colman ranked President Bush and Democratic challenger John Kerry in 13 categories, from wine preference (Bush was "teetotaler," while Kerry was "presumably French") to wine for the candidate's public image (Bush was a "big, bold Aussie shiraz" while Kerry was a "subtle white Burgundy").

"I actually got a huge amount of interest. ... Many political blogs linked to it and it received a lot of page views," Colman recalled.

Oct. 31, 2006



(Chuck McCutcheon can be contacted at chuck.mccutcheon@newhouse.com.)

[palmspringsbum]

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER


Made-up threat courts right-wing voters
Thursday, November 2, 2006

By MARIANNE MEANS
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST

WASHINGTON -- The ink was barely dry on the opinion before President Bush hit the campaign trail with a new-old message warning that "activist judges are trying to redefine America by court order, raising doubts about the institution of marriage."

We have heard this poppycock before, although Bush lately had given up on pressing the issue. This is pure demagoguery, a made-up threat to help drive right-wing voters to the polls.

The court's decision did not attack the institution of marriage as such; it defended the principle of equal rights and attacked gender discrimination.

The New Jersey justices simply ruled that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits of heterosexual couples. Instead of being overly "activist," they tossed the thorny problem of whether to call such a union a "marriage" to the state Legislature and ordered the lawmakers to work it out. It is, in fact, similar to a recent New York state high court decision, which also tossed the question to the Legislature.

But Bush is not worried about the particulars. He is happy to distort anything, as long as it helps his partisans to stay in office.

Bush's fresh inclusion of the issue in his campaign speeches before partisan audiences this week drew sustained applause. The line is a crowd-pleaser with his base, even though Iraq is still the dominant issue.

In eight states, voters are considering constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. In the past two years, gay marriage bans have passed in 16 states. But this year the issue lost some of its fervor, as voters realized that civil unions in Vermont and legal weddings in Massachusetts did not destroy the traditional notion of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

In two states with tight Senate races -- Tennessee and Virginia -- marriage amendments are on the ballot. GOP candidates Sen. George Allen and Bob Corker have aired commercials claiming that their opponents, Jim Webb and Rep. Harold Ford, back gay marriage. Webb says he doesn't favor gay marriage but opposes the Virginia amendment because it is so broad it could deny any unmarried couple basic legal and financial rights. Ford says he doesn't favor gay marriage either and that Republicans are spreading "despicable, rotten lies."

It's interesting that New Jersey -- which also has a close Senate race -- does not have a proposed gay marriage ban on the ballot. Both Senate candidates basically have ignored the subject.

The hypocrisy of the GOP on this issue is stunning, and a sad measure of the party's political desperation these days. The party is full of active gay men who are influential congressional aides and lobbyists. Some are in the closet; some are well known for their sexual orientation.

The GOP congressional leadership was in no hurry to expose the scandal surrounding gay ex-Rep. Mark Foley's odd relationship with House interns under his control and actively may have covered it up. The House ethics committee has interviewed House Speaker Dennis Hastert and others who disagree with each other about what they knew and when. But the GOP-controlled committee will not issue a report until after the election.

Bush supports a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which as proposed would prohibit judges from ruling that either the Constitution or any state gives same-sex couples the right to marry or the same legal rights as married couples. Unless Congress shifts dramatically rightward next week, it will never pass.

In theory, a better way would be to emulate California, where both houses approved a gay rights bill without pressure from the courts or the federal government. But there was a catch. The state's Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, vetoed it.

The public is getting fed up with the GOP's instance upon acting as our moral police, intruding on individual lives. Same-sex marriage is just one of several issues, from right-to-die to medical marijuana, that contribute to the widespread unhappiness with the Bush administration. Iraq trumps everything, but underlying discontent over the war is all this other stuff. It adds up to a potential disaster next week for the GOP. And Republican political strategist Karl Rove may not have any more tricks.

<hr class=postrule>
Marianne Means is a Washington, D.C., columnist with Hearst Newspapers. Copyright 2006 Hearst Newspapers. She can be reached at 202-263-6400 or means@hearstdc.com.

© 1998-2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

[palmspringsbum]

Vote for Change

The Drug Policy Alliance
November 1, 2006


<table class=posttable align=right width=60><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/nadelmann_ethan.jpg></td></tr></table>Next Tuesday, November 7, is Election Day. There's a lot at stake, including control of Congress and the direction of our country. While journalists and elected officials wonder what the impact of the election will be on the war in Iraq, few are talking about what the impact will be on America's longest running war: the war on drugs. This war--a war on our own people--has destroyed millions of lives. And the casualties continue to mount. The total cost to taxpayers is approaching a trillion dollars.

It's time for a change. But nothing will change without your help.

<span class=postbigbold>Here is What You Can Do</span><ol><li>Vote. And get your friends and family to vote. The election is Tuesday, November 7, but in some states you can take advantage of early or absentee voting. It's none of our business who you vote for, just vote. A good resource for finding out where to vote is at MyPollingSite. Many Congressional races are going to be very close. Your vote </li>matters.

<li>Educate yourself on where candidates stand on the issues. For instance, our 2006 Congressional Voter Guide lets you know how your member of Congress voted on drug policy reform issues. Vote Smart is a good non-partisan web site for finding out where candidates stand on a variety of issues. </li>

<li>Volunteer for a campaign, especially in close races.</li>

<li>Support ballot measures that reform drug laws, such as measures in Colorado (Amendment 44) and Nevada (Question 7) to eliminate criminal penalties for small amounts of marijuana, and a measure in South Dakota (Measure 4) to legalize medical marijuana. Oppose ballot measures that escalate the war on drugs, such as a measure in Arizona (Proposition 301) to deny drug treatment to people arrested for possession of methamphetamine. </li>

<li>Help people exercise their right to vote, and make sure every vote is counted. Volunteer for organizations assisting voters and monitoring voting. </li></ol>For too long politicians have scapegoated people with substance abuse problems, used the war on drugs as an excuse to lock people up, and wasted our tax dollars. For too long they have shortchanged treatment and stood in the way of campaigns to reduce drug overdoses and the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis and other infectious diseases. For too long they have been allowed to punish people simply for what they put into their own bodies.

On Tuesday you can make your voice heard. And you can help other people make their voices heard. The choice is clear. Do nothing and allow the war on drugs to continue. Or vote for change. Do nothing and allow 1.8 million Americans to be arrested for drug law violations every year (700,000 just for simple possession of marijuana). Or vote for change.

You can't afford to stay home on November 7. The Drug Policy Alliance Network can't afford for you to stay home. And your country cannot afford for you to stay home. So vote. And get your friends and family to vote. You can find out more about where to vote in your area here.

Sincerely,

Ethan Nadelmann
Executive Director
Drug Policy Alliance Network

[palmspringsbum]

The immoral majority in America

Article Launched:11/02/2006 09:33:58 AM PST
The Argus

AS usual, Republicans are hoping that righteous voters will come through for them on Election Day. But this year looks like the revenge of the sinners.

The sinners aren't easy to count, since they don't spend a lot of time doing grassroots politicking. There is no Washington lobby for the Coalition of the Damned. They don't like to confess their urges to pollsters. But there are enough of them, particularly in places where Republicans are struggling, to cast doubt on the party's longstanding strategy.

Why did Republicans assume there was a Moral Majority? Where in the Bible does it say the virtuous outnumber the wicked? When you define wickedness the way Republicans do, the numbers are daunting.

One of the few achievements of the GOP Congress this year was a law to crack down on online gambling, an industry that counted 8 million American customers last year — about four times the membership of the Christian Coalition. The new law hasn't stopped the online gamblers from betting, but it will give them second thoughts about voting Republican.

The Republican war on marijuana — the chief priority of the current drug czar — isn't playing any better in the heartland. More than 40 percent of people over the age of 12 have tried marijuana, and more than three-quarters of Americans support legalizing it for medical purposes. The White House and the Justice Department have had little luck in their attempts to stop states from legalizing medical marijuana, but they have succeeded in alienating voters.


This year, the White House drug czar, John Walters, and his minions have been out campaigning in Nevada, Colorado and South Dakota, which have marijuana initiatives on the ballot. The drug warriors are still sounding the discredited alarms about youths turning into potheads.

What's surprising is the political stupidity of the meddling. Westerners, no matter what they think of marijuana, don't appreciate sermons from federal officials on how to vote. In 2002, when the White House campaigned against another marijuana ballot initiative in Nevada, the state's attorney general said it was "disturbing" to see the federal interference in a state election.

This year, with Republicans in so much trouble in the West, the missionaries from Washington aren't doing them any favors. They need every sinner's vote they can get.


John Tierney writes for the New York Times.

[palmspringsbum]

Several States, Cities To Vote Tuesday On Marijuana Depenalization

November 2, 2006 - Washington, DC, USA
National Organization to Reform Marijuana Laws


Washington, DC: Voters in three states and several municipalities will decide Tuesday on proposals to depenalize the possession and use of cannabis by adults. Below is a summary of each of these initiatives.

<hr class=postrule>
<span class=postbigbold>STATEWIDE MEASURES</span>

<span class=postbold>COLORADO:</span> Amendment 44, the "Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative," would revise state statutes to eliminate all criminal and civil prohibitions on the private possession and use of up to one ounce of cannabis for anyone age 21 or older. The measure, sponsored by Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER), has been endorsed by numerous Colorado newspapers, including the Aspen Times, the Boulder Weekly, and the Aurora Daily Sentinel. Last year, voters in Denver passed a similar municipal initiative by 54 percent. <i>Listen to SAFER Campaign Director Mason Tvert on the NORML AudioStash at:</i> http://www.normlaudiostash.com/id156.htm.

<span class=postbold>NEVADA:</span> Question 7, the "Regulation of Marijuana Initiative," would remove all criminal and civil penalties for the private possession and use of small quantities of cannabis by those age 21 or older. The measure would also seek to create a statewide system for the taxation, legal cultivation, distribution, and sale of cannabis to adults by licensed vendors. Question 7 has been endorsed by the Las Vegas Review Journal and more than 30 state religious leaders. A similar proposal was rejected by Nevada voters in 2002. Listen to Question 7 Campaign Director Neal Levine on the NORML AudioStash at: http://www.normlaudiostash.com/id235.htm.

<span class=postbold>SOUTH DAKOTA:</span> Initiated Measure 4 would allow state authorized patients to possess up to six plants and/or one ounce of cannabis for medical purposes. Qualified patients must possess a physician's recommendation to use cannabis and must register with the state Department of Health. Non-registered patients, or those who possess greater quantities of cannabis than allowed under state law, would have the option of raising an 'affirmative defense' of medical necessity at trial. Voters in eight states -- Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington -- have approved similar measures since 1996.

<hr class=postrule>
<span class=postbigbold>MUNICIPAL MEASURES</span>

<span class=postbold>EUREKA SPRINGS, ARKANSAS:</span> A proposed citywide ordinance, sponsored by the Fayetteville/University of Arkansas chapter of NORML, would direct local law enforcement to issue a summons in lieu of a criminal arrest for adults found to be in possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and/or marijuana paraphernalia. "The message of this ordinance is that people should not use marijuana, but should also not lose opportunities for education and employment because of such use," says Ryan Denham, who spearheaded the proposal. The measure is the first marijuana depenalization initiative to qualify for the ballot in Arkansas. Under state law, possession of one ounce or less of cannabis is a criminal misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and up to one year in prison. Listen to Campaign Director Ryan Denham on the NORML AudioStash at: http://www.normlaudiostash.com/id210.htm.

<span class=postbold>SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA:</span> Measure P, sponsored by Sensible Santa Barbara and the UCSB chapter of NORML, directs municipal police to make all law enforcement activities related to the investigation, citation, and/or arrest of adult cannabis users their lowest priority. It would also appoint a community oversight committee to monitor police activity as it pertains to marijuana law enforcement. The measure has received endorsements from the Santa Barbara Independent, the Santa Barbara News-Press, and City Councilmember Das Williams. Seattle voters passed a similar proposal in 2003, resulting in a 75 percent reduction in citywide marijuana arrests. Listen to Measure P Campaign Director Lara Cassell on the NORML AudioStash at: http://www.normlaudiostash.com/id230.htm.

<span class=postbold>SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA:</span> Measure K would mandate police to make all law enforcement activities "relating to adult marijuana offenses their lowest law enforcement priority." The measure further directs city officials to refuse "any federal funding that would be used to investigate, cite, arrest, prosecute, or seize property from adults for marijuana offenses." The Democratic Party of Santa Cruz County as well as several local politicians are backing the measure. Listen to Campaign Coordinator Kate Horner on the NORML AudioStash at: http://www.normlaudiostash.com/id230.htm.

<span class=m-date>SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA:</span> Measure Y directs police to make the enforcement of minor marijuana possession violations their "lowest law enforcement priority," and mandates the City Council to issue semi-annual reports on "the estimated time and money spent by the city on law enforcement and punishment for adult marijuana offenses." The measure has been endorsed by the California Nurses Association and the Santa Monica Democratic Club. City officials in nearby West Hollywood enacted a similar ordinance this summer. Listen to Measure Y Campaign Coordinator Nicki LaRosa on the NORML AudioStash at: http://www.normlaudiostash.com/id230.htm.

<span class=postbold>MISSOULA, MONTANA:</span> Initiative 2 ("An Initiative to Alter Law Enforcement Priorities in Missoula County") directs local police to make the enforcement of minor marijuana violations their lowest priority, and appoints a community oversight committee to ensure that the police are obeying the voters' mandate. According to the initiative's sponsors, Citizens for Responsible Crime Policy, a Missoula citizen is arrested every 33 hours on marijuana-related charges. Under Montanan law, possession of up to approximately two ounces of cannabis is a criminal misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $500 fine. Listen to Initiative 2 spokesperson Angela Goodhope on the NORML AudioStash at: http://www.normlaudiostash.com/id210.htm.

[palmspringsbum]

Gay Marriage Ban Rejected in Arizona


<table class=posttable align=right width=240><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/gavel.jpg></td></tr></table>By DAVID CRARY
AP National Writer
First Coast News
November 8, 2006

In a triple setback for conservatives, South Dakotans rejected a law that would have banned virtually all abortions, Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage and Missouri approved a measure backing stem cell research.

Nationwide, a total of 205 measures were on the ballots in 37 states Tuesday, but none had riveted political activists across the country like the South Dakota measure. Passed overwhelmingly by the legislature earlier this year, it would have been the toughest abortion law in the nation, allowing the procedure only to save a pregnant woman's life.

Lawmakers had hoped the ban would be challenged in court, provoking litigation that might eventually lead to a U.S. Supreme Court reversal of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

Jan Nicolay, a leader of the state's anti-ban campaign, said voters viewed the measure - which lost by a 55-45 margin - as too intrusive.

"We believe South Dakotans can make these decisions themselves," she said. "They don't have to have somebody telling them what that decision needs to be."

Arizona broke a strong national trend by refusing to change its constitution to define marriage as a one-man, one-woman institution. The measure also would have forbid civil unions and domestic partnerships.

Eight states voted on amendments to ban gay marriage: Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin approved them. Similar amendments have passed previously in all 20 states to consider them.

"What we're seeing is that fear-mongering around same-sex marriage is fizzling out," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. He noted that the bans that succeeded won by much narrower margins, on average, than in the past.

Conservatives had hoped the same-sex marriage bans might increase turnout for Republicans, though the GOP had a rough night. Democrats had looked for a boost from low-income voters turning out on behalf of measures to raise the state minimum wage in six states. The wage hikes passed in Arizona, Colorado. Missouri, Montana, Ohio and Nevada.

The Missouri stem cell measure passed by a narrow margin. It had become a key factor in the state's crucial Senate race, won by Democratic challenger Claire McCaskill, who supported it, over incumbent Republican Jim Talent, who opposed it.

Celebrities also had plunged into the campaign: actor Michael J. Fox, suffering from Parkinson's disease, endorsed the amendment, while several sports stars spoke against it.

In Michigan, voters took a swipe at affirmative action, deciding that race and gender should not be factors in deciding who gets into public universities or who gets hired for government work.

Arizona voters faced the most ballot measures - 19. They approved four that arose out of frustration over the influx of illegal immigrants: One measure makes English the state's official language, while another expands the list of government benefits denied to illegal immigrants.

Voters weren't keen about another, more quirky Arizona measure: They defeated a proposal that would have awarded $1 million to a randomly selected voter in each general election.

In Ohio and Arizona, anti-smoking activists won showdowns with R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. Voters in each state approved a tough ban on smoking in public places and rejected rival, Reynolds-backed measures that would have exempted bars. Voters in Arizona and South Dakota approved increases in tobacco taxes, while the proposal was rejected in Missouri.

Nevada and Colorado voters rejected measures that would have legalized possession of up to an ounce of marijuana by anyone 21 and older. South Dakotans voted down a proposal that would have allowed marijuana use for some medical purposes. A winning measure in Rhode Island will restore voting rights to felons on probation and parole.

Elsewhere, land use was a hot issue, part of a backlash against a 2005 Supreme Court ruling allowing the city of New London, Conn., to buy up homes to make way for a private commercial development.

Nine states approved eminent-domain measures barring the government from taking private property for a private use. Arizona's winning measure went a step further, requiring state and local authorities to compensate property owners if land-use regulations lowered the value of their property: Idaho rejected a similar measure.

South Dakota voters defeated a measure that would have made their state the first to strip immunity from judges, exposing them to the possibility of lawsuits. In Maine, Nebraska and Oregon, voters defeated measures that would cap increases in state spending.

Pennsylvania voters gave the state the go-ahead to borrow $20 million so that nearly 33,000 veterans in the state who participated in the Persian Gulf War could collect one-time payments up to $525.

[palmspringsbum]

2006 Mid-Term Election Results Offer Mixed Bag For Marijuana Law Reform

November 8, 2006 - Washington, DC, USA
NORML


<span class=postbold>Washington, DC:</span> The 2006 mid-term elections offered mixed results for marijuana law reformers, with voters rejecting three statewide liberalization efforts, but approving numerous local measures to 'deprioritize' pot law enforcement.

Voters in <span class=postbold>Colorado</span>, <span class=postbold>Nevada</span>, and <span class=postbold>South Dakota</span> turned back efforts to amend state penalties on the use and possession of cannabis. Colorado's Amendment 44, which gained 40 percent of the vote, sought to eliminate civil penalties on the possession and use of up to one ounce of marijuana by adults. Question 7 in Nevada, which won 44 percent of the vote, sought to remove all civil penalties for the private possession and use of small quantities of cannabis, and directed state officials to create a statewide system for the taxation, legal cultivation, distribution, and sale of marijuana to adults by licensed vendors. South Dakota's Initiated Measure 4, which gained 48 percent of the vote, sought to allow the physician-authorized use of cannabis for medicinal purposes.

Regarding the three failed statewide initiative efforts, NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre stated: "These outcomes, while disappointing, were not unexpected. Despite these results, adults in both Colorado and Nevada continue to live under state laws that authorize the medical use of marijuana and allow adults to possess and use small amounts of pot without the threat of incarceration or a criminal record. South Dakota's result, while disheartening, does nothing to change the fact that according to national polls, nearly eight out of ten Americans support the physician-approved use of medicinal cannabis."

Local cannabis reform initiatives won overwhelmingly in yesterday's election. In <span class=postbold>Eureka Springs</span>, Arkansas, 64 percent of voters approved a citywide ordinance directing local law enforcement to issue a summons in lieu of a criminal arrest for adults found to be in possession of up to one ounce of cannabis and/or marijuana paraphernalia. The measure, sponsored by the Fayetteville/University of Arkansas chapter of NORML, is the first pot 'depenalization' measure ever approved in the state.

In California, local voters approved a trio of pot 'deprioritization' measures. In <span class=postbold>Santa Barbara</span>, 65 percent of voters backed Measure P, which directs municipal police to make all law enforcement activities related to the investigation, citation, and/or arrest of adult cannabis users their lowest priority, and also appoints a community oversight committee to monitor police activity as it pertains to marijuana law enforcement. <span class=postbold>Santa Cruz</span> and <span class=postbold>Santa Monica</span> voters approved similar measures (Measure K and Measure Y) each by votes of 63 percent.

A separate pot deprioritization measure (Initiative 2) also passed in <span class=postbold>Missoula, Montana</span>, with 53 percent of the vote.

Finally, in Massachusetts, voters in several House and Senate Districts approved public policy questions concerning the decriminalization of cannabis for personal use and the legalization of marijuana for medical purposes. Since 2002, more than 420,000 Massachusetts voters in 110 communities have approved similar non-binding resolutions.

NORML's St. Pierre said that the strong showing in local races demonstrates Americans' overwhelming support for more responsible pot policies. "What these results tell us is that citizens strongly support reforming America's marijuana laws, but that they prefer to do so incrementally," he said. "These successes on the municipal level, once again, affirm that a majority of US citizens don't want adults who use marijuana responsibly to face arrest or jail, and they do not want their tax dollars spent on policies that prioritize targeting and prosecuting marijuana offenders."

St. Pierre added that this year's election results also have potential federal ramifications, noting that California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who now stands to be House Speaker, is a longtime supporter and former co-sponsor of medical marijuana legislation. "It is our hope that with new Democratic leadership in the US House of Representatives we will finally be able to move forward with legislation and hearings on both the physician-approved medical use of marijuana as well as the decriminalization of cannabis for responsible adults," he said.

For more information, please contact NORML Executive Director Allen St. Pierre or NORML Senior Policy Analyst Paul Armentano at (202) 483-5500.


updated: Nov 08, 2006

[palmspringsbum]

What Do the 2006 Election Results Mean for Drug Policy Reform?

November 8, 2006
The Drug Policy Alliance

Democrats have taken control of the U.S. House for the first time in 12 years, picking up at least 27 House seats from Republicans. And Democrats picked up at least five Senate seats and may win the other seat they need to take control of the Senate (Virginia is still undecided). Ten local marijuana law reform initiatives also won big yesterday. But voters rejected three important statewide marijuana initiatives, and approved a measure in Arizona that will undercut the state’s successful treatment-instead-of-incarceration law. What does all this mean for drug policy reform?

<span class=postbold>Ballot Measures</span>

Statewide measures to legalize small amounts of marijuana failed in Colorado (40% to 60%) and Nevada (44% to 56%). South Dakota voters narrowly defeated a medical marijuana initiative (48% to 52%). The South Dakota defeat is especially disappointing because it marks the first time that medical marijuana has lost at the ballot box. (Voters have approved medical marijuana in eight other states). None of these losses can be described as a total surprise. Polling all year long showed that support for the initiatives was much lower than support for successful reform measures in previous years. The voters just were not ready for them.

In California, voters in Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Monica approved local measures making marijuana possession the lowest law enforcement priority in their cities. Voters in Missoula, Montana and Eureka Springs, Arkansas approved similar measures. In Massachusetts, voters in two legislative districts approved non-binding resolutions in support of making possession of up to one ounce of marijuana a civil violation subject only to a $100 fine. And in two other Massachusetts legislative districts, voters approved non-binding resolutions in support of legalizing marijuana for medical use. Voters in Albany, California approved an initiative allowing a medical marijuana dispensary to open in the city.

Overall, it’s clear that the tide is turning in favor of reforming marijuana laws--but we wish it were turning faster. Drug Policy Alliance Network (DPAN), the lobbying arm of the Drug Policy Alliance, welcomes feedback on how to move marijuana law reform forward. [link feedback to e-mail].

In Arizona, state legislators put a measure on the ballot that will undercut Proposition 200, a treatment-instead-of-incarceration law that voters approved in 1996. (Prop. 200 served as a model for Proposition 36, which California voters approved four years later). Arizona voters approved the measure, 58% to 42%. The new law allows judges to exclude people arrested for methamphetamine possession from the state’s successful treatment program. DPAN is deeply concerned that other states will view this new law as a model. But we're happy to have beaten back a similar attack on treatment in the California legislature earlier this year.

<span class=postbold>Congress</span>

The Democratic takeover of the U.S. House (and possible takeover of the Senate) provides DPAN with some exciting opportunities next year. Democrats at the federal level are far more sympathetic to reform than Republicans (this stands in contrast to state-level politics where Republicans are some of the strongest champions of reform in key states). For instance, 144 House Democrats voted earlier this year to prohibit the U.S. Justice Department from undermining state medical marijuana laws. Only 18 Republicans supported the measure. 169 Democrats voted last year to cut funding to the Andean Counterdrug Initiative (more commonly known as "Plan Colombia"), but only 19 Republicans voted to do so. Since almost all of the Republicans who were defeated yesterday were bad on both of these issues, we look forward to significantly more support next year. (Only one of the defeated Republicans supported medical marijuana, and only three voted to cut funding to the Andean Counterdrug Initiative).

Our federal political action committee (DPAC) helped several good state legislators get elected to Congress--most notably Steve Cohen (D-TN), who backed medical marijuana and sentencing reform in the Tennessee legislature, and Chris Murphy (D-CT), who supported DPAN's medical marijuana and crack/powder cocaine sentencing reform bills in the Connecticut legislature.

Many members of Congress DPAN works with were re-elected, including Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). Senator Bob Menendez (D) was re-elected in New Jersey and Rep. Ben Cardin (D) was elected to the Senate for the first time in Maryland. Both voted for medical marijuana in the House, making them the only two U.S. Senators to have voted for medical marijuana in the past. This puts DPAN in a good position to advance this issue in the Senate.

The most important change will come early next year when Republican Committee chairs like Rep. James Sensenbrenner (WI) and Rep. Mark Souder (IN) are replaced by solid drug policy reformers. Instead of playing defense trying to stop bad bills like Sensenbrenner’s horrible "snitch" bill [link], DPAN will be able to devote more resources to moving good bills forward.

The Democrats who will be leaders in the new Congress are better on drug policy reform than Democrats were in the 1990s under Clinton, and much better than Democrats were in the 1980s under Reagan. For instance, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who will most likely be Speaker of the House next year, is a strong supporter of medical marijuana and sentencing reform. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who will chair the House Judiciary Committee next year, is a member of the Drug Policy Alliance’s advisory board. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), who will chair the Government Reform Committee, is a strong supporter of syringe exchange programs and other harm reduction measures. Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) are strong supporters of drug sentencing reform. All three will likely control key Congressional committees next year.

We’re excited. It’s very possible that DPAN can pass the Hinchey-Rohrabacher medical marijuana amendment and other reforms next year. At a time when the Bush Administration is increasing federal prosecution of medical marijuana patients and their providers, we have the capability of pushing back–-hard.

<span class=postbold>State Races</span>

Here are some brief updates on some of the states DPAN is very active in:

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) was re-elected. Generally speaking, he has been better on drug policy issues than his predecessor, Gray Davis (D), but he has still vetoed several of the reforms DPAN passed through the legislature. Schwarzenegger worked to defeat a "three strikes" reform initiative DPAN backed in 2004, and has severely underfunded Prop 36, our successful treatment-instead-of-incarceration law that California voters approved in 2000. But he has signed a number of reform bills that his predecessor vetoed, most notably DPAN's syringe access bill that will do more to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS in California than any other piece of legislation.

In Connecticut, Gov. Jodi Rell (R) was re-elected. She vetoed the first crack/powder sentencing reform bill that DPAN passed in the state, but signed the second one into law. Cliff Thorton, a drug policy reformer who heads the Connecticut-based reform group Efficacy, took 1% of the vote in his Green Party bid to unseat her. While votes are still being counted, it looks like Democrats will pick up enough seats in the Connecticut legislature to override the governor's vetoes. This puts us in a good position for next year, where DPAN will advance bills to legalize medical marijuana and reform draconian drug sentences. We are excited that a state legislator who supported our bills in the legislature, Chris Murphy (D), beat Congressman Nancy Johnson (R) and will be going to Congress.

In Maryland, Gov. Bob Ehrlich (R) lost. He supported medical marijuana, treatment-instead-of-incarceration and sentencing reform. We’re hoping the new governor, Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley (D), will be even better. We’re especially hoping that O’Malley will appoint Peter Beilenson as the state’s Health Commissioner. (Peter Beilenson is the former Baltimore Health Commissioner. He’s a strong supporter of drug policy reform, and an ally of DPAN. We backed his effort to win a Congressional seat, but he narrowly lost in the primary). Rep. Ben Cardin (D), who supported medical marijuana in the U.S. House, won his race to become a U.S. Senator. Kevin Zeese, who co-founded the Drug Policy Foundation (which merged in 2000 with the Lindesmith Center to become the Drug Policy Alliance) took 2% of the vote in his Green-Libertarian-third-party fusion bid to beat Cardin and his Republican opponent.

In New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson (D) was re-elected. The director of DPA's New Mexico office, Reena Szczepanski, co-chairs his methamphetamine taskforce. He also supported DPAN's medical marijuana bill last year and has promised to support it again in 2007. His Republican opponent, John Dendahl, has also supported medical marijuana and other reform issues. Our federal political action committee (DPAC) contributed money to Attorney General Patricia Madrid (D) for her campaign to defeat Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R), who has voted against medical marijuana three times in the U.S. House. Votes are still being counted in this very close race.

The New Mexico House of Representatives was up for re-election this year, and results are positive for drug policy reformers. Two medical marijuana opponents were defeated--House Minority Whip Rep. Terry Marquardt, R-53, Alamogordo, and Rep. Don Whitaker, D-61, Eunice. House Majority Leader Ted Hobbs' retirement coupled with Marquardt's loss also means entirely new leadership for the House Republicans in 2007. DPA NM's projected House votes look promising for both treatment-instead-of-incarceration initatives and legal access to medical marijuana. The New Mexico Senate's membership, which voted 34-6 last year in favor of medical marijuana, remains the same for 2007-2008.

In New Jersey, nothing changed with state-level races because those are up in odd years in the state. But our federal political action committee (DPAC) backed Assemblywoman Linda Stender (D) in her effort to unseat Congressman Michael Ferguson (R). She came very close (48% - 50%) in an excellent campaign to unseat someone who was considered unbeatable. She will continue to be a good ally in the legislature, where she supports DPAN's legislation to make sterile syringes more available. DPAC also supported Senator Menendez (D), who supports medical marijuana and other drug policy reforms.

In New York, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (D) will replace George Pataki (R) as governor. It is too early to tell where Spitzer will be on all the issues, but we know he will be a stronger supporter of reforming New York’s draconian Rockefeller Drug Laws than Pataki. We’re a little concerned that District Attorney Michael Arcuri (D) won his Congressional race. Arcuri has cruelly prosecuted people under the Rockefeller Drug Laws and opposed reform efforts. We hope his victory in a state that overwhelmingly supports reform will change his mind.

In Washington, Roger Goodman was elected to the Washington House. Goodman runs the King Country Bar Association’s Drug Policy Project. He has moved drug policy reform forward in the state and will be a major ally in the legislature. Our state political action committee contributed to his campaign.

<span class=postbold>Conclusion</span>

Over the coming weeks, look for information about DPAN's 2006 legislative strategy, which includes prohibiting the Justice Department from undermining state medical marijuana laws, eliminating the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, and cutting wasteful drug war spending. Thank you for your ongoing support--we couldn’t do any of our work without you!

[palmspringsbum]

Voters in 3 states say no to legalizing marijuana

By Jeff Robinson
Nov 8, 2006
BPNews


NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Voters defeated three pro-marijuana measures Nov. 7 that would have legalized use of the drug in three states -- Colorado, Nevada and South Dakota.

Barrett Duke, vice president for public policy and research of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, noted: “Despite the plays on people’s emotions, the majority of voters recognized that it is foolish to weaken laws on marijuana usage.

“Marijuana is a very dangerous drug. Anything we can do to help prevent access to it will result in many lives being spared its destructive effects,” Duke told Baptist Press.

In Colorado, Amendment 44, which would have allowed adults 21 and over to possess up to an ounce of marijuana, lost by nearly a 2-1 margin. So unpopular was the initiative, it won only half the vote in traditionally liberal Boulder County.

Robert McGuire, spokesman for the Colorado Chapter of Save Our Society from Drugs and a leader of the opposition of Amendment 44, said he is pleased with the resoundingly negative response to the measure.

“Our goal was to beat it badly enough so we don’t see it again on the ballot,” McGuire said.

Even if it had passed, Amendment 44 wouldn't have technically made smoking marijuana legal in Colorado. It is still a violation of federal drug laws -- though federal drug enforcement officials said publicly they will not actively seek to arrest and convict users in possession of an ounce or less.

The Nevada initiative was similar to the one in Colorado. Question 7 would have allowed Nevada residents 21 years of age or older to possess up to an ounce of marijuana but was being rejected by 56 percent of voters with 1,620 of 1,913 precincts statewide reporting late Wednesday morning.

If the initiatives had passed, they would have made Colorado and Nevada the first states to legalize marijuana use for recreational purposes. Previously, several states -- including Colorado -- passed medical marijuana initiatives that allowed for the distribution of the drug for those battling illness.

Rob Kampia, executive director for Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), touted the “huge progress” in Nevada since a 61-39 loss on a similar initiative four years ago. MPP is a pro-marijuana group that “works to minimize the harm associated with marijuana -- both the consumption of marijuana and the laws that are intended to prohibit such use.”

In South Dakota, Initiated Measure 4 was patterned after laws in 11 states legalizing marijuana for medical usage. Passage looked doubtful Wednesday morning with 141,734 votes against legalized use compared with 127,713 votes in favor, a 53-47 margin, with 743 precincts out of 818 reporting.

Those who opposed the initiative had argued that approval of the measure would have led to open marijuana use, and the public might think that it is the only medicine effective for certain ailments.

Those in favor argued in part that marijuana can relieve seriously ill patients' discomfort and even save lives. Currently under South Dakota law, patients who use marijuana can be sentenced to a year in prison and fined $2,000.

But there is something more subtle and sinister behind the push for legalizing pot for medical purposes, Duke said.

“I’m sure that many people who support the so-called medicinal use of marijuana are very genuine in their concern for people’s suffering. However, it is obvious that others see this issue as a first step toward complete legalization of the drug. We must recognize that the medical marijuana issue is the Trojan Horse of the marijuana legalization movement.

“To use people’s suffering as a subterfuge for such a sinister goal is despicable. I agree that we must do all we can to help people find ways to alleviate their pain and to deal with issues like appetite loss during therapy. I am not oblivious or insensitive to the pain and need of those who are suffering, but relaxing our guard against marijuana is not the answer. I encourage people to look for better, safer solutions.”

Several nonbinding pro-marijuana measures passed in two smaller municipalities in Massachusetts, in Missoula County, Mont., and three California cities -- Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara and Santa Monica. These measures direct law enforcement agencies to make arrests for marijuana possession their lowest priority.

Pro-marijuana advocates were encouraged by these smaller victories and say voters in Nevada, and possibly other states, will get another opportunity to vote on legalizing pot.

“The momentum is with us,” Kampia said. “We plan to try again with another marijuana initiative in Nevada in 2008 or 2010.”

Duke said he is troubled by the idea of making marijuana enforcement a low priority and sees it as a dangerous trend.

“Unfortunately, some communities have voted to ask their local law enforcement officials to look the other way on marijuana violations [which could] very well provide the slippery slope those who want to legalize marijuana are looking for,” Duke said.

“I encourage these communities to reevaluate this request and to reverse it at the earliest possible opportunity. If they do not, they may discover too late that their decision provided the opportunity for the forces of legalization to use their communities in their efforts to undermine the nation’s drug-control strategy.”

On drug legalization in general, Duke added, “I repeat my call for better enforcement of our drug laws, better treatment programs for people using drugs, more anti-drug education programs and harsher penalties for those who distribute drugs.”

[palmspringsbum]

Medical Marijuana Continues to Advance Despite Narrow S. Dakota Loss


The Marijuana Policy Project
November 9, 2006

<span class=postbigbold>New Congress Seen as Much More Supportive</span>

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The narrow, 48 percent to 52 percent defeat of South Dakota's medical marijuana initiative will not affect steady progress toward nationwide protection for medical marijuana patients, officials of the Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) in Washington, D.C. said today. They pointed to other results showing strong support for medical marijuana, polls showing strong support for the 11 existing state medical marijuana laws, a growing consensus in the medical community that marijuana does have therapeutic value, and a new Congress that will be much more receptive to legislation to protect patients.

"For the first time since states began passing medical marijuana laws in 1996, we will have a speaker of the House who supports protecting medical marijuana patients," said MPP Director of Government Relations Aaron Houston. New Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been a strong supporter of the Hinchey-Rohrabacher amendment, aimed at ending federal attacks on medical marijuana patients in states where medical use of marijuana is permitted. She also was a cosponsor of the States' Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA).

In addition, Houston noted, at least 20 medical marijuana opponents were defeated, while several new House members are expected to be supporters. Notably, the House seat formerly held by Harold Ford (D-TN), a consistent "no" vote on Hinchey-Rohrabacher, now goes to Stephen Cohen, who introduced medical marijuana legislation as a Tennessee state senator. Cohen was attacked for that position during the Democratic primary, but won both the primary and yesterday's general election easily.

The South Dakota initiative, Initiated Measure 4 faced intense opposition from the White House and much of South Dakota's political establishment, including Attorney General Larry Long. Supporters, however, say they aren't giving up.

"We knew from the early polling that this would be an uphill fight, particularly on a ballot filled with hot-button issues, and with the White House and the whole state establishment, including the attorney general, against us," said MPP Executive Director Rob Kampia. "The fact that we came this close against such powerful opposition is remarkable. Working with the local activists who started this effort, we plan to try again with another medical marijuana initiative in South Dakota in November 2008 or 2010.

"Every day, science continues to prove the medical value of marijuana. In just the last two months we've seen evidence of remarkable benefit against hepatitis C and even potential against Alzheimer’s disease. It's tragic that brave patients like Val Hannah, who spoke out for the initiative, will continue to face arrest and jail for simply trying to preserve their health, but in the long run, science and common sense will triumph over ignorance and fear."

A study published in the September European Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology found that hepatitis C patients who used medical marijuana were three times more likely than those who didn't use marijuana to successfully clear the deadly virus from their bloodstream.

The opposition campaign claimed that Measure 4 would increase teen drug use and would legalize marijuana even for non-patients. Such claims were raised when California passed the first effective medical marijuana law in 1996, but have not been borne out by experience in any medical marijuana state, including Montana, which passed a proposal nearly identical to Measure 4 in 2004. Recent polling in California and the 10 other medical marijuana states found strong support for the laws. For details, see www.mpp.org/prop215.

In other results Tuesday, voters in two Massachusetts legislative districted expressed support for medical marijuana by two-to-one margins, and voters in Albany, California, voted to permit a medical marijuana dispensary in their city.

With more than 20,000 members and 100,000 e-mail subscribers nationwide, the Marijuana Policy Project is the largest marijuana policy reform organization in the United States. MPP believes that the best way to minimize the harm associated with marijuana is to regulate marijuana in a manner similar to alcohol. For more information, please visit www.MarijuanaPolicy.org.

Date: 11/8/2006

[palmspringsbum]

Expect Pelosi's 'San Francisco Values' to Play Prominently in U.S. House

By James L. Lambert
November 9, 2006

(AgapePress) - Just 24 months ago, newspapers ranging from the West Coast to the Eastern seaboard were reporting that voters with conservative values played a large part in re-electing George W. Bush to a second term as president. These "values voters," as they were called, were discussed for months by political analysts and prognosticators as responsible for the swing vote in the 2004 elections. This trend came to a halt on Tuesday night with the sweeping changes and repudiation of the Republican Party in Congress.

With the Democrats winning control of the U.S. House, it is anticipated by party insiders that California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi will be nominated to be the next Speaker of the House, a position that will make her one of the most powerful people in Washington. In that role, she will be able to make committee assignments, determining the leadership of powerful positions throughout the House of Representatives. She will be the leader of the controlling party of a branch of government that traditionally determines -- along with the Senate -- how and where money is spent by the federal government. The San Francisco Democrat will also be instrumental in making policy recommendations that will guide legislation through Congress.

Nancy Pelosi is a relative unknown. Some polls indicate that only about 50 percent of voters know who she is. As a representative for the Bay Area, she most closely aligns herself with the culture and politics of that region. In the 1960s, for example, the Bay Area was the focal point of much of the college campus unrest over the Vietnam War. It would be consistent, then, that in February 2005 Pelosi voted no on continuing military recruitment on college campuses. Earlier Pelosi had supported area political leaders in the controversy over a historical battleship war memorial that was to be established on San Francisco Bay. Congresswoman Pelosi did not want the Navy ship to be docked there.

The traditional "values voter" who was such an important ingredient in Republican gains in 2004 has now relinquished power to a new breed of influence in Washington, an influence that at least one national radio talk-show host refers to as "San Francisco values." On Monday, Bill O'Reilly devoted a portion of his radio show (The Radio Factor) to discussing those values. In addition, nationally syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Savage, whose program (The Savage Nation) emanates from the Bay Area, also regularly discusses San Francisco culture and politics.

It is widely known that the San Francisco culture has for many years been a pro-abortion stronghold. From the daily newspaper (the San Francisco Chronicle) to city hall, the culture in the Bay Area has agreed more with Planned Parenthood than with evangelical Christians. This is the region that supported Representative Pelosi when, in June 1999, she voted against restrictions on transporting minors to get abortions. Planned Parenthood also supported Mrs. Pelosi's vote in rejecting a ban on partial-birth abortions (October 2003).

San Francisco is also home to a strong, politically active homosexual population which has an iron-clad influence on local politics. The City By the Bay has been ground zero for the gay "marriage" movement. Several years ago, the mayor of San Francisco authorized marriage licenses to same-sex couples. City leaders have also passed local legislation to force Bay Area businesses to make their companies more +gay friendly."

San Francisco activists have been instrumental in promoting the medical marijuana movement throughout the state of California. They helped pass a medical marijuana initiative that is being challenged in California courts. In 1999, Pelosi voted no on prohibiting needle exchange and medical marijuana in Washington, DC.

San Francisco area politicians in the California Assembly and State Senate have, for many years, discouraged oil exploration off the California coast. While estimates say that oil reserves off the California coast could rival those in Alaska, authorization to explore offshore has been blocked by a strong core of San Francisco environmentalists. In 2001, Pelosi voted to prohibit oil drilling and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and repeatedly voted against authorizing construction (October 2005) and permits (June 2006) for new oil refineries.

With Tuesday night's election results, conservatives are bracing for upheaval in Congress. With the change of leadership in the House, conservatives can expect to learn firsthand what "San Francisco values" are really about -- compliments of Nancy Pelosi.


<hr class=postrule>
James L. Lambert, a frequent contributor to AgapePress, is a licensed real-estate mortgage loan sales agent and can be contacted through his website.

[palmspringsbum]

Friday, November 10, 2006

Today's editorial: Mixed messages from ballot measures

<span class=postbold>From state to state, voters favored more government here, less government there</span>

Besides upsetting the Republicans' apple cart, voters Tuesday decided on a near-record number of ballot measures. Although it's difficult to see clear patterns from the results – measures to protect property rights (traditionally a Republican cause) and to raise the minimum wage (a perennial Democratic cause) were similarly successful – the voters offered a few surprises.

Perhaps the biggest jolt to conventional wisdom was the victory (58 percent "yes") of Measure 2 in Michigan. A measure to ban discrimination or preferential treatment by government institutions on the basis of race, similar to California's Proposition 209 in 1996, proponents called it the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Perhaps mindful that most polls show initiatives lose support when connected to the words "affirmative action," the attorney general chose the wording of the initiative's title.

Opposition to Measure 2 included Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and her Republican challenger, Richard DeVos, along with more than 180 sponsoring organizations from the ACLU to the Michigan Catholic Conference. The opposition campaign was bankrolled by the Big Three automakers and other corporate giants. The campaign in favor ran on a shoestring, out of the apartment of Debbie Gratz, the losing plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that decided race could be a factor, but not the factor, in University of Michigan admissions decisions.

Based on money and the status of the opponents, the measure should have lost. But Michigan voters endorsed the principle of equal treatment that has become so confused in recent times.

In the wake of last year's Supreme Court Kelo decision, 13 states had measures restricting government use of eminent domain. Except in California, where proponents didn't bother to put on a campaign, they all passed.

Six states had measures on the ballot to increase the minimum wage, and all six passed, suggesting that economic illiteracy is alive and well.

Measures in Colorado and Nevada to legalize possession of up to one ounce of marijuana failed, though 40 percent of voters favored it in Colorado. In South Dakota a measure to authorize medical use of marijuana failed 52-48. Two districts in Massachusetts endorsed medical marijuana, however, and voters in Albany, Calif., voted to permit a dispensary in their city.

South Dakota voters also approved a referendum overturning a law passed by the Legislature that would have banned virtually all abortions. California and Oregon voters rejected parental-notification measures.

All the measures restricting smoking, including in bars and restaurants, passed fairly handily.

So voters like property rights, economic regulation, equal treatment of people regardless of race and restricting the use of tobacco? Not exactly philosophically consistent, but initiatives do allow the people to handle issues that legislatures avoid, so the process is worth keeping.

[palmspringsbum]

Pelosi's Hometown Disputes Liberal Image

Friday November 10, 2006 9:16 AM
By RACHEL KONRAD and LISA LEFF
Associated Press Writers
The Guardian UK

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Gay weddings in the U.S. Capitol. Hippie gatherings on the Mall. Hempfest along the Potomac. Republican campaign strategists have evoked such images to mock the Democrats and especially San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi, who has represented Babylon by the Bay since 1987 and now stands poised to become speaker of the House.

But in the district where Pelosi was re-elected Tuesday with more than 80 percent of the vote, constituents say that Middle America has nothing to fear from San Francisco and that the city has more variety than its most colorful elements might suggest.

``They think we are tree-huggers and granola eaters,'' Mary Graves, 47, a self-described mainstream Democrat, said with a laugh. ``I explain that I'm just tolerant and love diversity and having everyone get along and respect each other.''

San Francisco is, without a doubt, the nation's unofficial gay capital and a bastion of the far left and the radical fringe. But it is also the home of cutting-edge businesses, rich Internet entrepreneurs and other buccaneering capitalists, and a monied class that thrives on fine dining and the arts.

The results of Tuesday's municipal election, in which Pelosi's Republican challenger got more votes than the Green Party candidate, capture San Francisco's political complexity. Residents approved a measure requiring employers to provide sick pay to hourly workers. But they rejected a proposal to raise taxes on parking garages.

Aaron Peskin, president of the city Board of Supervisors, said San Francisco has such ethnic, cultural and political diversity that its elected officials must be masters of consensus-building.

``The kinds of skills you need to be an effective decision-maker on the local level in San Francisco - having to compromise between various constituencies - makes someone very well situated for doing that in our nation's capital,'' he said of Pelosi.

Pelosi, a 66-year-old mother of five who is married to an investment banker, occupies the middle ground of San Francisco politics. California's two Democratic senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, also from the Bay Area, respectively stand to Pelosi's right and left.

Jeane Kirkpatrick, President Reagan's foreign policy adviser and a former U.N. ambassador, is said to have coined the ``San Francisco liberal'' label in 1984. Addressing the Republican National Convention, she accused San Francisco Democrats of pulling the party too far to the left and not aggressively fighting communism.

More recently, the San Francisco area's embrace of gay marriage, medical marijuana and the anti-war movement reinforced the city's image as a loopy place out of sync with the rest of America.

That's ironic, said Richard DeLeon, professor emeritus of political science at San Francisco State University.

``The values of the American creed - individuality, liberty, free speech, democracy and at least the aspiration of equality - can be expressed and experienced in San Francisco to an extent that's hard to find elsewhere,'' said DeLeon, who first came here during the 1967 Summer of Love. ``San Francisco isn't un-American. America has become less American, with a retreat from civil liberties and, in the White House, suppressive policies and pre-emptive war.''

Despite its perception as being on the fringe, the Bay Area plays a central role in the national and global economy; entrepreneurship is encouraged and richly rewarded.

Silicon Valley gets more venture capital funding than any other region in the world, and companies here set the pace for workplace trends such as casual dress, telecommuting and stock option compensation.

``San Francisco is a place where ideas are accepted and heard,'' said Sharon Miller, chief executive of Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center, a nonprofit that trains people who want to open their own businesses. ``We're known for innovation - and for supporting innovation.''

Arianna Orleans, 35, a professor of English and a married mother of a 15-month-old boy in San Francisco, wondered why many Americans see the city as unaligned with ``family values.''

``I want to raise my child in San Francisco because that I feel that here he'll see examples of all kinds of people, and he'll know that all those different choices are valid,'' Orleans said. ``Whether he wants to wear tie-dye or khakis - that's valid, and there will probably be lots of other people making the same choices who are valuable, respected members of his community.''

[palmspringsbum]

<span class=postbold>Drug War Chronicle - world’s leading drug policy newsletter</span>

Election 2006: Local Marijuana Initiatives Win Across the Board

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #461, 11/10/06

Statewide medical marijuana and marijuana legalization initiatives had a tough time at the polls on Tuesday, but it was a different story for a set of local measures that make adult marijuana possession offenses the lowest law enforcement priority. In three California cities, small-town Eureka Springs, Arkansas, and college town Missoula County, Montana, voters sent a clear message to law enforcement and local officials that they should find better things to do than persecute pot users.

Voters in Albany, California, also passed a medical marijuana initiative, Measure D, supported by Americans for Safe Access.

Tuesday's lowest law enforcement priority victories, which were funded by the Marijuana Policy Project, are the latest of a series of initiatives that started in Seattle in 2003 and now include Oakland, California, and Columbia, Missouri. In California, initiative supporters hope to use this week's victories as a springboard to either more local initiatives or statewide action in the near future.

In the Golden State, as part of the California Cities Campaign, the cities of Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Monica all passed lowest priority initiatives, with 65% of the vote in the first two and 64% in Santa Monica.

Sensible Santa Barbara campaign director Lara Cassell told Drug War Chonicle Thursday the group was eager to move on to implementing the new lowest priority policy. "We are looking forward to working with the police and the city council to get this up and running," she said.

But Cassell and the rest of the California Cities Campaign crew are not resting on their laurels. They are instead seeking to broaden the impact of their victories. "We are looking at the state and federal levels and we hope this will strengthen the case for reform," she said. "The voters have sent a really clear message that the drug war has failed and it is time for a new approach."

That same message was resonating -- though not quite as loudly -- in Big Sky Country. In Missoula County, Montana, the lowest priority initiative there won with 53% of the vote. Ignoring strong opposition from local law enforcement, voters in what is arguably Montana's most liberal county sent a strong signal that they, too, are looking for an alternative to the drug war, or at least marijuana prohibition.

Instead of listening to the police, a majority of Missoula voters listened to Citizens for Responsible Crime Policy, the group that proposed the measure and got it on the ballot. Led by spokesperson Angela Goodhope, the group argued that police should emphasize solving crimes that threaten people's lives and property, not those involving the use of marijuana by adults.

"We are very pleased that Missoula voters approved a clearer, safer and smarter crime policy," Goodhope told the Missoulian newspaper. Voters rejected law enforcement claims approval would result in the loss of federal anti-drug dollars, she noted. "None of the negative outcomes our opponents predicted will come true," Goodhope said. "We know that for a fact."

Meanwhile, down in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, a counterculture haven near the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville, voters approved a similar lowest priority initiative with 64% of the vote. Sponsored by the Fayetteville/University of Arkansas NORML, the Eureka Springs vote marked the first rollback of marijuana prohibition in Arkansas history.

The strong showing in local races from California to Montana to Arkansas suggests that American voters are ready for more sensible marijuana policies, said National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws executive director Allen St. Pierre. "What these results tell us is that citizens strongly support reforming America's marijuana laws, but that they prefer to do so incrementally," he said. "These successes on the municipal level, once again, affirm that a majority of US citizens don't want adults who use marijuana responsibly to face arrest or jail, and they do not want their tax dollars spent on policies that prioritize targeting and prosecuting marijuana offenders."

[palmspringsbum]

<span class=postbold>Drug War Chronicle - world’s leading drug policy newsletter</span>

Election 2006: Brief Comment on the Transfer of Power in Congress

from Drug War Chronicle, Issue #461, 11/10/06

Drug War Chronicle has this week focused on the results of ballot measures and individual candidacies of relevance to drug policy reform. We will next week publish an in-depth analysis of the potential impact that the change of control of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats could have on our issue, but in the meanwhile a few brief comments:

First, while DRCNet is a commitedly non-partisan organization that has had both good and bad -- mostly bad -- to say about both major parties' stances on drug policy, at the present moment in time our cause or at least some politically current corners of it, has more friends on the Democratic side of the aisle. Some of them are expected to take the chairmanships of key committees:<ul class=postlist><li> Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) is the next likely chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. He replaces James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), one of the most extreme drug warriors in Congress. Click here to read about Conyers' appearance at our Perry Fund event in Washington last year.)</li>

<li> Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), a committed criminal justice reform, is headed toward chairmanship of the subcommittee of Judiciary that deals with crime legislation. </li>

<li> George Miller (D-CA) is the likely chair of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, and Ted Kennedy (D-MA) of the Senate committee dealing with education, two of our best supporters in the effort to repeal the Higher Education Act drug provision -- we've gotten it part of the way already, it now may be a real possibility to get rid of it entirely. </li>

<li> Pat Leahy (D-VT) is in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, another of the best members of Congress on criminal justice issues. The current chairman, Arlen Specter (R-PA), is pretty decent on drug policy, better I would say than a lot of Democrats. But Leahy will probably do more for us, and Specter will still be there as the ranking minority member.</li></ul>This is not to say that the Democratic Party is a reliable ally for us by any means. After all, the terrible mandatory minimums we are living with today were enacted 20 years ago by a Democratically-controlled Congress, on the initiative of Democratic leaders. Only a few months ago Democratic Senator Charles Schumer sponsored millions of dollars of funding for opium eradication in Afghanistan, in our opinion a big mistake and unjust to the farmers who have no other effective way of feeding their families.

Nevertheless, in our opinion we now have a much better fighting chance -- not yet for legalization, perhaps, but for much positive progress -- and less of a chance of seeing really bad bills go through. Sentencing reform, needle exchange, scaling back Plan Colombia funding, even medical marijuana -- could they happen? The answer is now a definite maybe.

The more our forces grow, the more of you, our readers, take action, the more clout the cause will have with both Democrats and Republicans. We are at a juncture of historic possibilities in the issue, and we hope we can count on your support and participation in the months and years to come.

[palmspringsbum]

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Politics In Depth

<span class=postbigbold>A Review of America's Other Elections</span>

November 21, 2006
Angus Reid


The outcome of over 200 measures that were also voted on Nov. 7 suggests the president is down, but not his party.

Gabriela Perdomo - Among Democrats, there was joy. The morning after the mid-term election, Virginia’s James Webb had beaten Republican incumbent George Allen, assuring a Democrat majority in the Senate and in Congress overall for the first time in twelve years. It was an obvious defeat for Republicans, acknowledged by the president himself, who actually went on to say he bore "some responsibility" for his party’s loss.

Indeed, there is little doubt that the Democratic grab of Congress was directly related to the president’s decreasing popularity. That is certainly a reason for Republicans to worry, but not only them. The fact that the mid-term election was so emotionally tied to George W. Bush suggests people want change—clearly in everything concerning the war in Iraq—but not necessarily a change led by Democrats. Besides the process to renew the House of Representatives and elect a third of the Senate, another 204 ballot initiatives were voted in 37 states on Nov.7. Results from these elections suggest that when it comes to voting on particular issues Americans are still closer to conservative values—something to keep in mind for the 2008 presidential election.

The nation’s voting spree—which included a proposal to offer a $1 million U.S. prize to a random voter on each general election to promote turnout, which was defeated in Arizona—put for voter’s consideration issues ranging from same-sex marriage to affirmative action, stem cell research and abortion.

Same-sex marriage was the loser of the day. Measures to ban it passed in seven out of the eight states where it was proposed, adding up to the other 20 states where these unions had been banned before. Moreover, voters in Colorado refused a proposal to establish domestic partnerships, which would have allowed same-sex couples to enjoy similar legal rights and responsibilities as married couples without challenging the concept of marriage itself. Surprisingly enough, Arizonians voted against the same-sex marriage ban. Still, the measure was defeated by a slight margin of 51 per cent to 49 per cent. Affirmative Action, another liberal banner, was abolished in Michigan by a 16-point margin (although many blame this outcome on the tricky way the question was asked).

Abortion was widely seen as a liberal victory over radical conservatives who wanted to bring back punitive legislation and even challenge previous Supreme Court rulings at the federal level. 56 per cent of voters in the usually conservative South Dakota defeated a radical proposal that sought to ban almost all types of abortion, including in cases of incest or rape, but the number of people voting conservative on this matter is still significant. In California and Oregon, measures that would have forced physicians to notify parents before practicing an abortion to a girl under the age of 18 did not pass, but were still supported by 46 per cent of voters in both states.

Democrats celebrated the passing of a measure in favour of stem cell research funding in Missouri. But the victory was tight, with only 48,000 votes separating the two camps. The use of medical marijuana was yet another liberal defeat. A proposal to allow it was rejected in South Dakota—52 per cent to 48 per cent—while legalizing its possession was also rejected in Colorado, 60 to 40, and Nevada, 56 to 44.

Many political analysts believe that beyond the victorious headlines that congratulated the Democrats lies the fact that these elections actually proved that America is still a very conservative nation. Some underline the fact that the Democrats took over Congress mainly thanks to social-conservative candidates who were able to take down moderate Republicans. It is the case of North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, an anti-abortion, pro-gun Democrat who was elected to the House of Representatives.

Ahead of the 2008 presidential election, there is plenty to ponder. According to the last survey by Opinion Research Corporation, Republican Arizona senator John McCain, a potential candidate, holds a slight lead—which falls within the margin of error—over three potential Democratic hopefuls: New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Illinois senator Barack Obama and Massachusetts senator John Kerry. The same survey shows that if the GOP candidate were former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, he would be tied with Clinton, but would defeat Obama and Kerry by a wide margin.

Nov. 7 was surely a triumphant date for the Democrats, but it also showed that besides the feeling of dissatisfaction with the ongoing war in Iraq, which plays in their favour, the Democrats are not in a better position to win the presidency than they were two years ago.

[palmspringsbum]

THE WESTERN FRONT

'A Wipeout Election'

Popularity and success couldn't save one Republican governor from the Democratic tide.

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, December 5, 2006 12:01 a.m.
The Wall Street Journal

ANNAPOLIS, Md.--In the four weeks since losing his bid for re-election, Gov. Robert Ehrlich has been braced by an outpouring of support from constituents. Each day he reads some of the thousand of letters and emails that have come in and marvels as one after the other expresses regret for his defeat.
But every so often, the governor told me on Friday, he comes across a letter of a different sort. These come from residents who say that they're "sorry" that they couldn't support him "this time," but that if he runs again they'll likely vote for him then. Here the governor, the first Republican chief executive the state has seen in more than three decades, pauses. We're sitting in a private study in the governor's mansion, and over some 90 minutes a half dozen of his top staff members will trickle in and take a seat. None possess an answer to the question he now asks: "How do you respond to that?"

<table class=posttable align=left width=130><tr><td class=postcell><img class=postimg src=bin/ehrlich_robert.jpg></td></tr></table>The story line out of the midterm elections is that Republicans were defeated across the country because they lost the support of independent voters. That was likely the case in Missouri, Montana and Virginia, where incumbent Republican senators were voted out of office. In Colorado and Ohio, where GOP gubernatorial candidates came up short, it was, in part, a failure to appeal to Republican voters. But in crunching through the numbers with Gov. Ehrlich, a different picture emerges for the results in Maryland--a picture that may be even more troubling for Republicans who have only recently begun to think of themselves as members of the majority party.

Gov. Ehrlich won big among Republicans and independents. And he enjoyed high marks among voters of all stripes for cleaning up a fiscal mess he inherited four years ago (he turned a $4 billion deficit into a $2.3 billion surplus). He succeeded at killing $7.5 billion in tax hikes pushed by the Legislature, cleaned up the Chesapeake Bay, and granted clemency to a surprising number of convicted criminals who had cleaned up their own acts. He signed a medical marijuana bill into law and throughout his tenure won praise from even those who disagreed with him for sticking to his principles of limited government and pro-growth economic policies.

He lost last month because the Democratic voters who had supported him four years ago decided this year to use their votes to "send a message" to Republicans in Washington. His mistake, he told me, was in thinking that approval ratings above 50%, wide agreement that he's done a sound job as governor, and high marks for personal integrity would allow him to differentiate himself from the national party. In a state where registered Democrats amount to about 53% of those who cast ballots on Election Day, it just wasn't possible to distance himself from his party. In the end, support from Republicans and independents left him with 46% of vote.

How then can Gov. Ehrlich respond to his fair-weather supporters? His first impulse was to return to policy and note that while he has been in office the number of charter schools in the state expanded to 23, up from one. He also notes he has improved the business climate to attract jobs that otherwise would have gone to Delaware, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia or West Virginia. He ticks off a list in quick succession: Dreyer's Ice Cream (700 new jobs in Laurel), Wegman grocery (700 new jobs in Prince George's County) and American Woodworking (500 new manufacturing jobs in Allegany County).
This approach, however, didn't work for the governor in the campaign--something he would readily acknowledge. "I can't think of a single policy decision" that if made differently would have changed the outcome of the election, he told me. In an election where his opponent, Baltimore's Mayor Martin O'Malley, ducked nearly all of the debates and mentioned President Bush more than a dozen times in one of the two that he showed up for, there likely isn't a substantive policy change that would have altered the outcome of the race in favor of the incumbent.

There is a lesson here for conservatives hoping to regain the policy initiative. Gov. Ehrlich did not mention the names Mark Foley, Bob Ney, Randy "Duke" Cunningham or Tom DeLay--the four Republican congressmen forced to resign amid scandal over the past year--or even that of disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff. But looking over his election results it becomes clear that when unprincipled Republicanism is allowed to dominate in Washington, conservatives outside of the Beltway will be made to pay a price of it.

The temptation may be to lay blame for the election results at the feet of President Bush. And Gov. Ehrlich might well have paid a political price for being in the same party as a president waging an increasingly unpopular war--though the governor will not point a finger at the White House and still displays in his office photos of both the former and the current President Bush. But then at least the president has traded away popularity for a principled stand on national security. It becomes infinitely more difficult for even a popular Republican incumbent to survive in a state dominated by Democrats when a Republican Congress makes the party unpopular by abandoning its principles.

The damage from that may run much deeper than the loss of Congress and may take a lot more than winning back support among independent voters. Four years ago Mr. Ehrlich won an upset victory and appeared ready to return conservatism to a state that had come to be dominated by a brand of liberal politics better associated with Massachusetts. He even beat a Kennedy, then-Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. His running mate, Michael Steele, became the first African-American ever elected statewide in Maryland. His election carried with it the promise of planting conservative roots in liberal territory and perhaps even winning significant support for the GOP within the black community--two necessary steps if the GOP was to solidify itself as the majority party.

Now that's all been undone. Along with voting Gov. Ehrlich out of office, Maryland voters handed defeats to Mr. Steele, who was running for Senate, and to down-ballot Republicans who had hoped to pick up seats in the state Legislature. Not parsing words, the governor described it as "a wipeout election."
Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.


Copyright © 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.